That beast companions are treated not as actual companions but as some sort of remote weapon that you must use your attacks to wield is likewise not a defense of favored foe. "It is great because of how bad this subclass ability is!" is not much of a defense.
You asked why one attack, and I told you; it's not my fault you didn't know how Beast Masters work.
You can indeed take Deft Explorer with Favored Foe, but you can *also* instead take Deft Explorer with Favored Enemy. When determining comparative value, you need to look at all the alternatives and options and take everything in context.
If you want to build a Ranger with as many languages and skills as possible, go do that, I never said you couldn't; but as I've said it's very difficult to compare the value of more skills and languages to a combat ability as both are entirely dependent on campaigns and DM's.
If you can avoid a fight entirely by speaking the right language, then that can be infinitely more valuable in that moment than doing extra damage while saving on some spell slots, but the opposite is also true when speaking to something makes no difference, or the languages you pick never come up (or the DM has no idea what to do with it when they do because they forgot you had them). The point is you were complaining about losing languages, but you can take more with Deft Explorer if you need them, and you don't need to take Favoured Foe.
Your complaint is that Favoured Foe is somehow worthless and bad, and that there's no point in anyone ever taking it, but it's simply not true, no matter how much you're determined to warp the entire universe around your argument to make it so. Just because you can't find value in something doesn't mean that no-one else can, and if you're not going to buy a book because you don't like one optional feature then feel free to buy yourself a tiny little violin to play my thoughts about that on.
Meanwhile in the real world Tasha's Cauldron is a great addition, with loads of useful features for people to use, just like Xanathar's Guide to Everything; some of it won't please everyone, but it's not supposed to. If you want to keep whining about Favoured Foe, please do-so in the Ranger sub-forum where it's already been discussed to death, because I'm not engaging you any further in here.
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 like parts of the book a lot but a fair amount is meh.... I am particularly disappointed in the CFV.
I like what they did with ranger and I like the additions to the other classes....but its such a hodge podge of good and bad additions and changes.
Ranger is fixed for the most part but Favored Foe shows a fundamental misunderstanding of why Hunters Mark is actually bad for ranger.
The new sorcerers are so good that the pitiful options added for PHB sorcerers is laughable.
Wizards got a buff they didn't need. Clerics got more powerful with spells back.
Monk options are OK but do not address the core issue of ki that the new UA does (PB uses of features is an AMAZING idea).
Overall the worst thing: 99% of these are straight up additions and not options. The fact you get new features without any cost is straight up power creep. I am not opposed to this fully but the balance between the classes was already bad and this did not fix any of that to a meaningful extent.
It shows a healthy misunderstanding of what excites people and where the balance of the classes is at.
Xanathars was better received due to the sheer volume of spells added which is the most exciting part of the game for most and the idea of adding a lot of subclasses at once was a new thing.
Now we are years down the road and the subclass drop is less exciting as its been discussed to death from UA and the small amount of spells makes it less impactful.
Overall it feels more like an interesting article than a full book...you read it and kinda move on with your life.
Reflavoring would take you a lot further than it does now if the classes were designed from day 1 to be a rough mechanical 'base' and leave the thematics and RP to the player.
It's one of my gripes with 5e. Either there should be a lot of classes which are really specific in their thematics, or there should be few classes which are just generalist and can allow any theme to be glued on without having to haggle with the DM.
5e has gone for few classes, which are also very pecific thematically.
I think it's a mistake to think of them as hard themes; the flavour is there to give players ideas when they don't have any, or at least that's how I've always thought about it.
In my experience at least there are two main types of players when it comes to creating characters; the first has an idea for the character itself, then works out the mechanics second, and that's great, but some of us aren't that good at coming up with an idea like that.
Personally I do it the other way around; I often experiment with a few choices mechanically, then fill in the details afterwards. I don't really do power-building, I just try to come up with something that I'm interested in playing mechanically, then I use bits of flavour and lore to help spark some ideas of what that character might then be like.
D&D 5e is pretty good for helping out the second type of character creation with the backgrounds encouraging you to roll or think about traits etc., it helps you build up little fragments that you can then fill in the blanks of, which is a fun way to do it IMO, but it's all optional. If you've already had the ideas then just ignore any supplied flavour. The only examples that have really annoyed me with the Sword Coast Battlerager and Bladesinger with their racial limitations; sure it says "ask your DM" but I never liked it being that way around, it should really have been open and just had a note in lore that this these are typically Dwarf/Elf only.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
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.
Reflavoring would take you a lot further than it does now if the classes were designed from day 1 to be a rough mechanical 'base' and leave the thematics and RP to the player.
It's one of my gripes with 5e. Either there should be a lot of classes which are really specific in their thematics, or there should be few classes which are just generalist and can allow any theme to be glued on without having to haggle with the DM.
5e has gone for few classes, which are also very pecific thematically.
I think it's a mistake to think of them as hard themes; the flavour is there to give players ideas when they don't have any, or at least that's how I've always thought about it.
In my experience at least there are two main types of players when it comes to creating characters; the first has an idea for the character itself, then works out the mechanics second, and that's great, but some of us aren't that good at coming up with an idea like that.
Personally I do it the other way around; I often experiment with a few choices mechanically, then fill in the details afterwards. I don't really do power-building, I just try to come up with something that I'm interested in playing mechanically, then I use bits of flavour and lore to help spark some ideas of what that character might then be like.
D&D 5e is pretty good for helping out the second type of character creation with the backgrounds encouraging you to roll or think about traits etc., it helps you build up little fragments that you can then fill in the blanks of, which is a fun way to do it IMO, but it's all optional. If you've already had the ideas then just ignore any supplied flavour. The only examples that have really annoyed me with the Sword Coast Battlerager and Bladesinger with their racial limitations; sure it says "ask your DM" but I never liked it being that way around, it should really have been open and just had a note in lore that this these are typically Dwarf/Elf only.
The trouble is many DM's will take that as hard themes. There are plenty of people already complaining that Paladin's don't have to be lawful good and religious anymore.
Half the people that say 'just reflavor a paladin to make a swordmage' will go 'nope' if you come to their table asking to reflavor a paladin to a swordmage.
I've seen threads before where people ask if things like the oath is essential to play a paladin class, or a patron is essential to play a warlock, and the answer it overwhelmingly yes, those are part of the class and you have no choice in it.
I'm one of those who comes up with a character first and then tries to squeeze it into the class mechanics, which often ends up not working. I think people who pick a class and then build a character around that class are generally much happier with the options and system. Their character is built in DnD itself, while thinking of a character and then trying to shoehorn them into DnD mechanics inevitably means that things don't line up.
Reflavoring would take you a lot further than it does now if the classes were designed from day 1 to be a rough mechanical 'base' and leave the thematics and RP to the player.
It's one of my gripes with 5e. Either there should be a lot of classes which are really specific in their thematics, or there should be few classes which are just generalist and can allow any theme to be glued on without having to haggle with the DM.
5e has gone for few classes, which are also very pecific thematically.
I think it's a mistake to think of them as hard themes; the flavour is there to give players ideas when they don't have any, or at least that's how I've always thought about it.
In my experience at least there are two main types of players when it comes to creating characters; the first has an idea for the character itself, then works out the mechanics second, and that's great, but some of us aren't that good at coming up with an idea like that.
Personally I do it the other way around; I often experiment with a few choices mechanically, then fill in the details afterwards. I don't really do power-building, I just try to come up with something that I'm interested in playing mechanically, then I use bits of flavour and lore to help spark some ideas of what that character might then be like.
D&D 5e is pretty good for helping out the second type of character creation with the backgrounds encouraging you to roll or think about traits etc., it helps you build up little fragments that you can then fill in the blanks of, which is a fun way to do it IMO, but it's all optional. If you've already had the ideas then just ignore any supplied flavour. The only examples that have really annoyed me with the Sword Coast Battlerager and Bladesinger with their racial limitations; sure it says "ask your DM" but I never liked it being that way around, it should really have been open and just had a note in lore that this these are typically Dwarf/Elf only.
The trouble is many DM's will take that as hard themes. There are plenty of people already complaining that Paladin's don't have to be lawful good and religious anymore.
Half the people that say 'just reflavor a paladin to make a swordmage' will go 'nope' if you come to their table asking to reflavor a paladin to a swordmage.
I've seen threads before where people ask if things like the oath is essential to play a paladin class, or a patron is essential to play a warlock, and the answer it overwhelmingly yes, those are part of the class and you have no choice in it.
I'm one of those who comes up with a character first and then tries to squeeze it into the class mechanics, which often ends up not working. I think people who pick a class and then build a character around that class are generally much happier with the options and system. Their character is built in DnD itself, while thinking of a character and then trying to shoehorn them into DnD mechanics inevitably means that things don't line up.
But I think the thing is, that would stop feeling like D&D. It's always been classes, albeit with a steady drop in requirements for those classes as time goes on -- forget just lawful good, Paladins used to have to be human with a 17 Cha (among other minimums) that you got by rolling 3d6 in order. And races, which have also been changing with each edition. And now backgrounds. Personally the combo of class/race/background (not to mention custom backgrounds being pretty easy to whip up) has been able to make anything I wanted (maybe you're more creative. I can admit that).
And I'd argue DMs/other players being opposed to you re-flavoring things isn't a game issue, its an issue with the people at the table having different playstyles. Some people are more strict, other more freewheeling. If, as you said, half the people will say your paladin can't call himself a swordmage, that would still mean half the people will, find those folks (yes, easier said than done).
Overall the worst thing: 99% of these are straight up additions and not options. The fact you get new features without any cost is straight up power creep. I am not opposed to this fully but the balance between the classes was already bad and this did not fix any of that to a meaningful extent.
Did you really expect these changes to fix perceived balance issues? I don't think perfect balance has ever been a goal, as they would have done it a long time ago if it was. And really I think that in 99.9% of actual D&D games it's a non-issue anyway, as people pointlessly trying to math combat online don't even agree on which class(es) are really "best" half the time, as they're all working from different definitions of "best". A sorcerer for example will only feel weaker than a wizard as a caster if you have both in the party at once, and even then it's heavily build and campaign dependent, what level you get etc.
Tasha's Cauldron, like Xanathar's Guide to Everything, is all about giving more options; this includes stuff like formal mechanics for things many DM's already do in their games already (like sidekicks, group patrons etc.), feats to make it easy to gain a little bit of multi-classing, more fighting styles/invocations etc.
Meanwhile the feature variants aren't about balancing classes or sub-classes, they're about making it easier to build the character you want, which I think is a common theme through the player-side of the book with things like the added flexibility in racial bonuses etc. And a lot of the additional things are actually still options, but many are just active options, such as Clerics gaining a new Channel Divinity (regain a spell slot), Monks gaining new basic Ki abilities and so-on. That said, some of them do help disadvantaged sub-classes a bit more, which is never a bad thing; Ki-Fuelled Attack is good on most Monks, but is going to be especially welcome to Way of the Four Elements for example.
Overall though it's about letting characters be customised more, or do more, and I think most of the changes/options succeed just fine in that. If you wanted them to balance the classes then I feel like you've set the wrong expectations as I don't think they were ever going to do that, and likely won't even try until there's a 6th edition.
The trouble is many DM's will take that as hard themes. There are plenty of people already complaining that Paladin's don't have to be lawful good and religious anymore.
Half the people that say 'just reflavor a paladin to make a swordmage' will go 'nope' if you come to their table asking to reflavor a paladin to a swordmage.
I've seen threads before where people ask if things like the oath is essential to play a paladin class, or a patron is essential to play a warlock, and the answer it overwhelmingly yes, those are part of the class and you have no choice in it.
I feel like I need some citations for these because this hasn't been my experience at all; the ultimate authority in D&D isn't the rules, it's the DM, so if you want to tweak something thematically it's up to them, and I've never encountered a DM who isn't happy to make some minor concessions thematically for interesting character ideas, so long as nobody takes the piss ("My character's backstory is he has a hammer that kills anything in one hit").
The way you phrase the last part is a bit misleading; Paladins and Warlocks do have to have an Oath or Patron mechanically, as these are their sub-classes, but what the theme of those actually is up to you, indeed the flavour kind of emphasises that even if they lean towards specific themes. For example, Paladin oaths aren't bound to a specific god, just as Warlock patrons aren't specific (great old one is a choice of potential or unknown old ones etc.). And it's not hard to reflavour or tweak; if you don't like the rules of a Paladin oath, come up with some alternate ones of similar severity that fit your intended character's moral code better. If you don't want a specific patron on a warlock, then where do their powers come from? etc.
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.
As someone who's been playing a ranger for a while (L11 gloom stalker/L1 rogue) I can see why they dropped "no concentration required" from Favoured Foe - to keep multi-classers from abusing the crap out of it. Likewise, fixing Tireless to level 10 - sorry, berserkers! It was made clear almost as soon as the class feature variants appeared that Favoured Foe wouldn't survive in its original form, so why all the meltdowns now? The official version still gives the ranger better (i.e. less situational) options than before, and there's more to D&D than damage output.
Numfar! Do the dance of joy!
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Frankly, my dear, I'd rather be listening to Rehn Stillnight.
As someone who's been playing a ranger for a while (L11 gloom stalker/L1 rogue) I can see why they dropped "no concentration required" from Favoured Foe - to keep multi-classers from abusing the crap out of it. Likewise, fixing Tireless to level 10 - sorry, berserkers! It was made clear almost as soon as the class feature variants appeared that Favoured Foe wouldn't survive in its original form, so why all the meltdowns now? The official version still gives the ranger better (i.e. less situational) options than before, and there's more to D&D than damage output.
Numfar! Do the dance of joy!
I can understand why the 'no concentration' was dropped. That is pretty easy to understand. However watering the effect down above and beyond that? Less accepting thereof.
And similarly no problem of Tireless being 10th. Deft Explorer is good and overall a definite improvement.
Agreed - I'd have just dropped the "no concentration" part. Funny thing, I hardly ever use hunter's mark. I guess that's why it's less of an issue for me - if I wanted to be a damage output monster I'd be playing a paladin. :-)
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Frankly, my dear, I'd rather be listening to Rehn Stillnight.
Reflavoring would take you a lot further than it does now if the classes were designed from day 1 to be a rough mechanical 'base' and leave the thematics and RP to the player.
It's one of my gripes with 5e. Either there should be a lot of classes which are really specific in their thematics, or there should be few classes which are just generalist and can allow any theme to be glued on without having to haggle with the DM.
5e has gone for few classes, which are also very specific thematically.
For people who want different mechanics to accompany their flavor, reflavoring takes that player nowhere.
Reflavoring would take you a lot further than it does now if the classes were designed from day 1 to be a rough mechanical 'base' and leave the thematics and RP to the player.
It's one of my gripes with 5e. Either there should be a lot of classes which are really specific in their thematics, or there should be few classes which are just generalist and can allow any theme to be glued on without having to haggle with the DM.
5e has gone for few classes, which are also very specific thematically.
For people who want different mechanics to accompany their flavor, reflavoring takes that player nowhere.
D&D is a class-based system. There's always going to be limitations as long as that holds true (which, I suspect, will be forever - going classless would mean it wouldn't be D&D anymore). 5E is easily the most convenient edition for mixing and matching mechanics to best accomodate a character concept though. Multiclassing in particular has never been easier, but unless I'm mistaken you for someone else you're not a fan of that aspect of this edition. Not sure entirely what to suggest here.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
Reflavoring would take you a lot further than it does now if the classes were designed from day 1 to be a rough mechanical 'base' and leave the thematics and RP to the player.
It's one of my gripes with 5e. Either there should be a lot of classes which are really specific in their thematics, or there should be few classes which are just generalist and can allow any theme to be glued on without having to haggle with the DM.
5e has gone for few classes, which are also very specific thematically.
For people who want different mechanics to accompany their flavor, reflavoring takes that player nowhere.
D&D is a class-based system. There's always going to be limitations as long as that holds true (which, I suspect, will be forever - going classless would mean it wouldn't be D&D anymore). 5E is easily the most convenient edition for mixing and matching mechanics to best accomodate a character concept though. Multiclassing in particular has never been easier, but unless I'm mistaken you for someone else you're not a fan of that aspect of this edition. Not sure entirely what to suggest here.
Even in a classless system, if the mechanics to do what a player really wants are not available, or perhaps just cost too much during character creation, they're still up the creek.
Reflavoring would take you a lot further than it does now if the classes were designed from day 1 to be a rough mechanical 'base' and leave the thematics and RP to the player.
It's one of my gripes with 5e. Either there should be a lot of classes which are really specific in their thematics, or there should be few classes which are just generalist and can allow any theme to be glued on without having to haggle with the DM.
5e has gone for few classes, which are also very specific thematically.
For people who want different mechanics to accompany their flavor, reflavoring takes that player nowhere.
D&D is a class-based system. There's always going to be limitations as long as that holds true (which, I suspect, will be forever - going classless would mean it wouldn't be D&D anymore). 5E is easily the most convenient edition for mixing and matching mechanics to best accomodate a character concept though. Multiclassing in particular has never been easier, but unless I'm mistaken you for someone else you're not a fan of that aspect of this edition. Not sure entirely what to suggest here.
I have no problem with Multiclassing. But mixing and matching mechanics that were designed for other themes and squinting real hard to pretend they fit a different theme feels... hollow to me. I would rather actually have unique mechanics, or at least unique combinations without having to jump through hoops to do it. That’s why I homebrew so much.
As someone who's been playing a ranger for a while (L11 gloom stalker/L1 rogue) I can see why they dropped "no concentration required" from Favoured Foe - to keep multi-classers from abusing the crap out of it. Likewise, fixing Tireless to level 10 - sorry, berserkers! It was made clear almost as soon as the class feature variants appeared that Favoured Foe wouldn't survive in its original form, so why all the meltdowns now? The official version still gives the ranger better (i.e. less situational) options than before, and there's more to D&D than damage output.
Numfar! Do the dance of joy!
I can understand why the 'no concentration' was dropped. That is pretty easy to understand. However watering the effect down above and beyond that? Less accepting thereof.
And similarly no problem of Tireless being 10th. Deft Explorer is good and overall a definite improvement.
Agreed - I'd have just dropped the "no concentration" part. Funny thing, I hardly ever use hunter's mark. I guess that's why it's less of an issue for me - if I wanted to be a damage output monster I'd be playing a paladin. :-)
The Concentration part is the part that is the problem for most of us.
Favored Foe is a trash ability that removes everything else that a ranger can do with spells. It either needs to not be concentration, or it needs to work on every hit, not just the first. One of the two would fix the ability. It's level 1, so maybe they were worried about multiclass dipping, but for the class where it has an intended use, it's useless.
As written, you might as well just take Favored Enemy: you get advantage on wis/int checks vs 3 favored enemies and 3 extra languages that way. You get more with that than Favored Foe if you're just going to go ranger.
Favored Foe is a trash ability that removes everything else that a ranger can do with spells. It either needs to not be concentration, or it needs to work on every hit, not just the first. One of the two would fix the ability. It's level 1, so maybe they were worried about multiclass dipping, but for the class where it has an intended use, it's useless.
That's not the purpose of Favoured Foe; if you want bonus damage all the time, cast Hunter's Mark and then nothing else that requires concentration.
Favoured Foe is for a Ranger that wants to cast short-lived concentration spells and still do bonus damage in between without burning through all of their limited spell slots. It basically gives you an extra resource to burn on a Hunter's Mark-like effect. It's not as strong as using Hunter's Mark, but then it doesn't need to be if you're wrecking stuff with Lightning Arrow; it also triggers in an interesting way, as it only requires a hit and has no range limit (compared to a bonus action and 90 foot limit for Hunter's Mark), this also means you can actually trigger it immediately after resolving Lightning Arrow to deal the bonus damage as well.
Remember, Rangers are half-casters; they have a maximumof 15 spell slots, but in reality it's more like 2-9 (levels 2 to 9) or 9-12 (levels 10 to 15) and those disappear faster if you want to both use Hunter's Mark and also use other concentration spells that interrupt it (mark + interruption + mark is three spell slots down). Favoured Foe can also actually be stronger for a Beast Master who may only be attacking once per turn anyway.
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.
Right, but you can only do it your proficiency bonus times per day. When you finally get Lightning Arrow at 9th level you can do the ability 4 times per day. You can't move the Favored Foe to a new target after the old one is dead... so worse than Hunter's mark in that sense. If you kill your ONE marked target the ability is gone... it does not say that you can move it, yes you can mark a new target, but again 4 times per day.
Then, at level 20, you HAVE to mark your target to get your 20th level ability, if you've already used this feature the max 6 times you can do it in a day, you miss out completely on your level 20 feature. You don't get your level 20 feature when you're not concentrating on this ability so screw other concentration spells.
Hunters mark stays on a target even if it's farther than 60 feet from you. It just has to be in 60 ft for you to cast it on it. Hunter's mark damage is also magical damage.
Favored Enemy gives you your level 20 ability on EVERY target that is your favored enemy, without concentration, without having to resource manage... Favored Foe is demonstrably worse than Favored Enemy because it does not synergize with the rest of the class.
Right, but you can only do it your proficiency bonus times per day. When you finally get Lightning Arrow at 9th level you can do the ability 4 times per day. You can't move the Favored Foe to a new target after the old one is dead... so worse than Hunter's mark in that sense. If you kill your ONE marked target the ability is gone... it does not say that you can move it, yes you can mark a new target, but again 4 times per day.
Then, at level 20, you HAVE to mark your target to get your 20th level ability, if you've already used this feature the max 6 times you can do it in a day, you miss out completely on your level 20 feature. You don't get your level 20 feature when you're not concentrating on this ability so screw other concentration spells.
Hunters mark stays on a target even if it's farther than 60 feet from you. It just has to be in 60 ft for you to cast it on it. Hunter's mark damage is also magical damage.
Favored Enemy gives you your level 20 ability on EVERY target that is your favored enemy, without concentration, without having to resource manage... Favored Foe is demonstrably worse than Favored Enemy because it does not synergize with the rest of the class.
Yeah overall its a badly designed feature....limited to the extent I do not see a ranger really ever using it over Hunter's Mark especially at late levels. Its a bottom of the trash bin type of use....when you have literally used everything else you do this to not feel completely useless. If it was concentration free as it would be a very cool and unique thing you could use with the large number of ranger concentration spells...but as is its pretty much trash tier at best.
Right, but you can only do it your proficiency bonus times per day. When you finally get Lightning Arrow at 9th level you can do the ability 4 times per day. You can't move the Favored Foe to a new target after the old one is dead... so worse than Hunter's mark in that sense. If you kill your ONE marked target the ability is gone... it does not say that you can move it, yes you can mark a new target, but again 4 times per day.
So don't use it on mobs; if you're building a Ranger that needs to swap concentration then you're probably taking things that are better at dealing with weaker enemies in the first place, you don't need Favoured Foe for them.
Then, at level 20, you HAVE to mark your target to get your 20th level ability, if you've already used this feature the max 6 times you can do it in a day, you miss out completely on your level 20 feature. You don't get your level 20 feature when you're not concentrating on this ability so screw other concentration spells.
When's the last time you actually played a Ranger to level 20? 😝
Hunters mark stays on a target even if it's farther than 60 feet from you. It just has to be in 60 ft for you to cast it on it.
Which is of precisely zero use if your target is outside that range and you want to attack it from where you are. 😉
Favored Enemy gives you your level 20 ability on EVERY target that is your favored enemy, without concentration, without having to resource manage... Favored Foe is demonstrably worse than Favored Enemy because it does not synergize with the rest of the class.
Favoured Enemy also denies you your level 20 ability on EVERY target that is NOT your favoured enemy, which is part of why people complain about it. 😝
The trade off is that Favoured Foe gives you control over exactly when you get Foe Slayer, and six uses is six minutes or up to sixty rounds of combat, which should be more than enough to cover tougher single targets, meanwhile you've the free spell slots to clear out any chaff along on the way.
It synergises just fine with the class, the problem is if you're thinking of it purely in terms of "Hunter's Mark is better" then that's the wrong way to do it, because if you have the option of just using Hunter's Mark then you didn't need Favoured Foe for your build in the first place.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
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.
"Mob" means 'Mobile Object." It refers to monsters in 'MuDs,' Multi-user Dungeons, which were the precursor to modern MMO's. In other words, the term does not apply just to 'boss' opponents but also to those weaker opponents.
A mob is a mob is a mob; it's literally a word with a literal meaning.
A little bit of extra damage is a lot less relevant against those 'weaker foes,' even if there are any there to deal with. Cannon fodder such as that is just there to slow you down a bit and usually is there in significant numbers. Remember each such enemy would require a separate use of 'Foe.' On the other hand, with Mark, you can use it on the chaff and still have it running against the big bad.
Please read what I said; I did not say to use Favoured Foe against mobs of wearker enemies.
Sure if you ignore Hunter's Mark completely, then it seems like something... still not great (rogues can get a sneak attack per turn for more damage than that without the use limit), but at least something. However if you ignore Hunter's Mark, you are the one 'doing it wrong.' Moreover, you are artificially weakening the class even more.
I also didn't say ignore Hunter's Mark entirely; if you're going to reply to me, please actually reply to me, do not invent something I did not say.
If you want to build your Ranger around maximising Hunter's Mark usage then you go ahead and do that, but it's not the only way to build a Ranger, you can play a pre-Tasha's Ranger without Hunter's Mark at all and it's still perfectly viable. And as I've tried repeatedly to communicate to you, Rangers have limited spell slots; even at level 20 you only have a maximum of 15 with no means of recovering them outside of a long rest, and if you use Hunter's Mark then need to swap out for another concentration effect you can end up burning 3 spell slots at at time. Favoured Foe at level 20 gives you six uses, which is nearly a 50% increase in your resources for managing concentration.
It doesn't matter if it doesn't support the types of Ranger builds you want to play, as it's an optional feature, you can simply not take it; but for concentration heavy builds it's a great option to have available, and it doesn't need to be stronger than Hunter's Mark to be useful for what it's actually for.
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 think it's very strange to give a class a weaker version of a low level spell that is already iconic to the class.. Imagine if wizard could replace arcane recovery with a weaker but cheaper version the find familiar spell.. I just can't make that kind of design choice seem like a good idea in my head.
I feel like the only reason the feature seems remotely justified, is that the existing ranger features rarely saw much use to begin with.. Which really speaks to a core issue with the class rather than saying much good about the alternative feature... This is an alternate feature, it is not a free ability rangers get.. Had it been free, atleast the rare occasions where would feel pretty decent.
I feel like the last feature the ranger needed, was another way to occupy their concentration, let alone one of the weakest way to use your concetratin I can think of.
You asked why one attack, and I told you; it's not my fault you didn't know how Beast Masters work.
If you want to build a Ranger with as many languages and skills as possible, go do that, I never said you couldn't; but as I've said it's very difficult to compare the value of more skills and languages to a combat ability as both are entirely dependent on campaigns and DM's.
If you can avoid a fight entirely by speaking the right language, then that can be infinitely more valuable in that moment than doing extra damage while saving on some spell slots, but the opposite is also true when speaking to something makes no difference, or the languages you pick never come up (or the DM has no idea what to do with it when they do because they forgot you had them). The point is you were complaining about losing languages, but you can take more with Deft Explorer if you need them, and you don't need to take Favoured Foe.
Your complaint is that Favoured Foe is somehow worthless and bad, and that there's no point in anyone ever taking it, but it's simply not true, no matter how much you're determined to warp the entire universe around your argument to make it so. Just because you can't find value in something doesn't mean that no-one else can, and if you're not going to buy a book because you don't like one optional feature then feel free to buy yourself a tiny little violin to play my thoughts about that on.
Meanwhile in the real world Tasha's Cauldron is a great addition, with loads of useful features for people to use, just like Xanathar's Guide to Everything; some of it won't please everyone, but it's not supposed to. If you want to keep whining about Favoured Foe, please do-so in the Ranger sub-forum where it's already been discussed to death, because I'm not engaging you any further in here.
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 like parts of the book a lot but a fair amount is meh.... I am particularly disappointed in the CFV.
I like what they did with ranger and I like the additions to the other classes....but its such a hodge podge of good and bad additions and changes.
Ranger is fixed for the most part but Favored Foe shows a fundamental misunderstanding of why Hunters Mark is actually bad for ranger.
The new sorcerers are so good that the pitiful options added for PHB sorcerers is laughable.
Wizards got a buff they didn't need. Clerics got more powerful with spells back.
Monk options are OK but do not address the core issue of ki that the new UA does (PB uses of features is an AMAZING idea).
Overall the worst thing: 99% of these are straight up additions and not options. The fact you get new features without any cost is straight up power creep. I am not opposed to this fully but the balance between the classes was already bad and this did not fix any of that to a meaningful extent.
It shows a healthy misunderstanding of what excites people and where the balance of the classes is at.
Xanathars was better received due to the sheer volume of spells added which is the most exciting part of the game for most and the idea of adding a lot of subclasses at once was a new thing.
Now we are years down the road and the subclass drop is less exciting as its been discussed to death from UA and the small amount of spells makes it less impactful.
Overall it feels more like an interesting article than a full book...you read it and kinda move on with your life.
I think it's a mistake to think of them as hard themes; the flavour is there to give players ideas when they don't have any, or at least that's how I've always thought about it.
In my experience at least there are two main types of players when it comes to creating characters; the first has an idea for the character itself, then works out the mechanics second, and that's great, but some of us aren't that good at coming up with an idea like that.
Personally I do it the other way around; I often experiment with a few choices mechanically, then fill in the details afterwards. I don't really do power-building, I just try to come up with something that I'm interested in playing mechanically, then I use bits of flavour and lore to help spark some ideas of what that character might then be like.
D&D 5e is pretty good for helping out the second type of character creation with the backgrounds encouraging you to roll or think about traits etc., it helps you build up little fragments that you can then fill in the blanks of, which is a fun way to do it IMO, but it's all optional. If you've already had the ideas then just ignore any supplied flavour. The only examples that have really annoyed me with the Sword Coast Battlerager and Bladesinger with their racial limitations; sure it says "ask your DM" but I never liked it being that way around, it should really have been open and just had a note in lore that this these are typically Dwarf/Elf only.
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.
The trouble is many DM's will take that as hard themes. There are plenty of people already complaining that Paladin's don't have to be lawful good and religious anymore.
Half the people that say 'just reflavor a paladin to make a swordmage' will go 'nope' if you come to their table asking to reflavor a paladin to a swordmage.
I've seen threads before where people ask if things like the oath is essential to play a paladin class, or a patron is essential to play a warlock, and the answer it overwhelmingly yes, those are part of the class and you have no choice in it.
I'm one of those who comes up with a character first and then tries to squeeze it into the class mechanics, which often ends up not working. I think people who pick a class and then build a character around that class are generally much happier with the options and system. Their character is built in DnD itself, while thinking of a character and then trying to shoehorn them into DnD mechanics inevitably means that things don't line up.
But I think the thing is, that would stop feeling like D&D. It's always been classes, albeit with a steady drop in requirements for those classes as time goes on -- forget just lawful good, Paladins used to have to be human with a 17 Cha (among other minimums) that you got by rolling 3d6 in order. And races, which have also been changing with each edition. And now backgrounds. Personally the combo of class/race/background (not to mention custom backgrounds being pretty easy to whip up) has been able to make anything I wanted (maybe you're more creative. I can admit that).
And I'd argue DMs/other players being opposed to you re-flavoring things isn't a game issue, its an issue with the people at the table having different playstyles. Some people are more strict, other more freewheeling. If, as you said, half the people will say your paladin can't call himself a swordmage, that would still mean half the people will, find those folks (yes, easier said than done).
Did you really expect these changes to fix perceived balance issues? I don't think perfect balance has ever been a goal, as they would have done it a long time ago if it was. And really I think that in 99.9% of actual D&D games it's a non-issue anyway, as people pointlessly trying to math combat online don't even agree on which class(es) are really "best" half the time, as they're all working from different definitions of "best". A sorcerer for example will only feel weaker than a wizard as a caster if you have both in the party at once, and even then it's heavily build and campaign dependent, what level you get etc.
Tasha's Cauldron, like Xanathar's Guide to Everything, is all about giving more options; this includes stuff like formal mechanics for things many DM's already do in their games already (like sidekicks, group patrons etc.), feats to make it easy to gain a little bit of multi-classing, more fighting styles/invocations etc.
Meanwhile the feature variants aren't about balancing classes or sub-classes, they're about making it easier to build the character you want, which I think is a common theme through the player-side of the book with things like the added flexibility in racial bonuses etc. And a lot of the additional things are actually still options, but many are just active options, such as Clerics gaining a new Channel Divinity (regain a spell slot), Monks gaining new basic Ki abilities and so-on. That said, some of them do help disadvantaged sub-classes a bit more, which is never a bad thing; Ki-Fuelled Attack is good on most Monks, but is going to be especially welcome to Way of the Four Elements for example.
Overall though it's about letting characters be customised more, or do more, and I think most of the changes/options succeed just fine in that. If you wanted them to balance the classes then I feel like you've set the wrong expectations as I don't think they were ever going to do that, and likely won't even try until there's a 6th edition.
I feel like I need some citations for these because this hasn't been my experience at all; the ultimate authority in D&D isn't the rules, it's the DM, so if you want to tweak something thematically it's up to them, and I've never encountered a DM who isn't happy to make some minor concessions thematically for interesting character ideas, so long as nobody takes the piss ("My character's backstory is he has a hammer that kills anything in one hit").
The way you phrase the last part is a bit misleading; Paladins and Warlocks do have to have an Oath or Patron mechanically, as these are their sub-classes, but what the theme of those actually is up to you, indeed the flavour kind of emphasises that even if they lean towards specific themes. For example, Paladin oaths aren't bound to a specific god, just as Warlock patrons aren't specific (great old one is a choice of potential or unknown old ones etc.). And it's not hard to reflavour or tweak; if you don't like the rules of a Paladin oath, come up with some alternate ones of similar severity that fit your intended character's moral code better. If you don't want a specific patron on a warlock, then where do their powers come from? etc.
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.
As someone who's been playing a ranger for a while (L11 gloom stalker/L1 rogue) I can see why they dropped "no concentration required" from Favoured Foe - to keep multi-classers from abusing the crap out of it. Likewise, fixing Tireless to level 10 - sorry, berserkers! It was made clear almost as soon as the class feature variants appeared that Favoured Foe wouldn't survive in its original form, so why all the meltdowns now? The official version still gives the ranger better (i.e. less situational) options than before, and there's more to D&D than damage output.
Numfar! Do the dance of joy!
Frankly, my dear, I'd rather be listening to Rehn Stillnight.
Agreed - I'd have just dropped the "no concentration" part. Funny thing, I hardly ever use hunter's mark. I guess that's why it's less of an issue for me - if I wanted to be a damage output monster I'd be playing a paladin. :-)
Frankly, my dear, I'd rather be listening to Rehn Stillnight.
For people who want different mechanics to accompany their flavor, reflavoring takes that player nowhere.
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
D&D is a class-based system. There's always going to be limitations as long as that holds true (which, I suspect, will be forever - going classless would mean it wouldn't be D&D anymore). 5E is easily the most convenient edition for mixing and matching mechanics to best accomodate a character concept though. Multiclassing in particular has never been easier, but unless I'm mistaken you for someone else you're not a fan of that aspect of this edition. Not sure entirely what to suggest here.
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
Even in a classless system, if the mechanics to do what a player really wants are not available, or perhaps just cost too much during character creation, they're still up the creek.
I have no problem with Multiclassing. But mixing and matching mechanics that were designed for other themes and squinting real hard to pretend they fit a different theme feels... hollow to me. I would rather actually have unique mechanics, or at least unique combinations without having to jump through hoops to do it. That’s why I homebrew so much.
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
The Concentration part is the part that is the problem for most of us.
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
Favored Foe is a trash ability that removes everything else that a ranger can do with spells. It either needs to not be concentration, or it needs to work on every hit, not just the first. One of the two would fix the ability. It's level 1, so maybe they were worried about multiclass dipping, but for the class where it has an intended use, it's useless.
As written, you might as well just take Favored Enemy: you get advantage on wis/int checks vs 3 favored enemies and 3 extra languages that way. You get more with that than Favored Foe if you're just going to go ranger.
That's not the purpose of Favoured Foe; if you want bonus damage all the time, cast Hunter's Mark and then nothing else that requires concentration.
Favoured Foe is for a Ranger that wants to cast short-lived concentration spells and still do bonus damage in between without burning through all of their limited spell slots. It basically gives you an extra resource to burn on a Hunter's Mark-like effect. It's not as strong as using Hunter's Mark, but then it doesn't need to be if you're wrecking stuff with Lightning Arrow; it also triggers in an interesting way, as it only requires a hit and has no range limit (compared to a bonus action and 90 foot limit for Hunter's Mark), this also means you can actually trigger it immediately after resolving Lightning Arrow to deal the bonus damage as well.
Remember, Rangers are half-casters; they have a maximum of 15 spell slots, but in reality it's more like 2-9 (levels 2 to 9) or 9-12 (levels 10 to 15) and those disappear faster if you want to both use Hunter's Mark and also use other concentration spells that interrupt it (mark + interruption + mark is three spell slots down). Favoured Foe can also actually be stronger for a Beast Master who may only be attacking once per turn anyway.
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.
Right, but you can only do it your proficiency bonus times per day. When you finally get Lightning Arrow at 9th level you can do the ability 4 times per day. You can't move the Favored Foe to a new target after the old one is dead... so worse than Hunter's mark in that sense. If you kill your ONE marked target the ability is gone... it does not say that you can move it, yes you can mark a new target, but again 4 times per day.
Then, at level 20, you HAVE to mark your target to get your 20th level ability, if you've already used this feature the max 6 times you can do it in a day, you miss out completely on your level 20 feature. You don't get your level 20 feature when you're not concentrating on this ability so screw other concentration spells.
Hunters mark stays on a target even if it's farther than 60 feet from you. It just has to be in 60 ft for you to cast it on it. Hunter's mark damage is also magical damage.
Favored Enemy gives you your level 20 ability on EVERY target that is your favored enemy, without concentration, without having to resource manage... Favored Foe is demonstrably worse than Favored Enemy because it does not synergize with the rest of the class.
Yeah overall its a badly designed feature....limited to the extent I do not see a ranger really ever using it over Hunter's Mark especially at late levels. Its a bottom of the trash bin type of use....when you have literally used everything else you do this to not feel completely useless. If it was concentration free as it would be a very cool and unique thing you could use with the large number of ranger concentration spells...but as is its pretty much trash tier at best.
So don't use it on mobs; if you're building a Ranger that needs to swap concentration then you're probably taking things that are better at dealing with weaker enemies in the first place, you don't need Favoured Foe for them.
When's the last time you actually played a Ranger to level 20? 😝
Which is of precisely zero use if your target is outside that range and you want to attack it from where you are. 😉
Favoured Enemy also denies you your level 20 ability on EVERY target that is NOT your favoured enemy, which is part of why people complain about it. 😝
The trade off is that Favoured Foe gives you control over exactly when you get Foe Slayer, and six uses is six minutes or up to sixty rounds of combat, which should be more than enough to cover tougher single targets, meanwhile you've the free spell slots to clear out any chaff along on the way.
It synergises just fine with the class, the problem is if you're thinking of it purely in terms of "Hunter's Mark is better" then that's the wrong way to do it, because if you have the option of just using Hunter's Mark then you didn't need Favoured Foe for your build in the first place.
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.
A mob is a mob is a mob; it's literally a word with a literal meaning.
Please read what I said; I did not say to use Favoured Foe against mobs of wearker enemies.
I also didn't say ignore Hunter's Mark entirely; if you're going to reply to me, please actually reply to me, do not invent something I did not say.
If you want to build your Ranger around maximising Hunter's Mark usage then you go ahead and do that, but it's not the only way to build a Ranger, you can play a pre-Tasha's Ranger without Hunter's Mark at all and it's still perfectly viable. And as I've tried repeatedly to communicate to you, Rangers have limited spell slots; even at level 20 you only have a maximum of 15 with no means of recovering them outside of a long rest, and if you use Hunter's Mark then need to swap out for another concentration effect you can end up burning 3 spell slots at at time. Favoured Foe at level 20 gives you six uses, which is nearly a 50% increase in your resources for managing concentration.
It doesn't matter if it doesn't support the types of Ranger builds you want to play, as it's an optional feature, you can simply not take it; but for concentration heavy builds it's a great option to have available, and it doesn't need to be stronger than Hunter's Mark to be useful for what it's actually for.
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 think it's very strange to give a class a weaker version of a low level spell that is already iconic to the class.. Imagine if wizard could replace arcane recovery with a weaker but cheaper version the find familiar spell.. I just can't make that kind of design choice seem like a good idea in my head.
I feel like the only reason the feature seems remotely justified, is that the existing ranger features rarely saw much use to begin with.. Which really speaks to a core issue with the class rather than saying much good about the alternative feature... This is an alternate feature, it is not a free ability rangers get.. Had it been free, atleast the rare occasions where would feel pretty decent.
I feel like the last feature the ranger needed, was another way to occupy their concentration, let alone one of the weakest way to use your concetratin I can think of.