I am creating a level 1 Satyr Ranger for the next campaign I am in and need some input. As a rule I like to steer clear of Hunter’s Mark but will be taking Zephyr Strike at level 2, which requires concentration anyway. I’d like input as to whether I should take the Favored Foe optional class feature. My character has no actual enemies so Favored Enemy is unnecessary, but could come into play anyway. In case it comes up in discussion, Favored Enemy requires concentration also.
I like the extra damage From HM or favored foe. (even if i sometimes use other concentration spells)That being said I also Prefer favored enemy. It works on ally creatures just as much as non- allies. Having the boosts to beasts gives a bonus when tracking any humanoid party with Beast mounts. Most dms give me the beast boost to poison harvesting checks as well. Also, it means I probably wont need some animal control spells if I can succeed at regular checks instead. Lots of other checks apply for other creatures but I get alot of mileage out of FE:beasts.
You can use both at the same round as well just dropping your Concentration from one or another.
Favored Foe is quite useful when you have plenty uses for your bonus action like TWFers, Horizon Walkers and Beastmasters.
This basically....if you are planning to have a lot of BA in your build (Crossbow expert, Polearm master, etc...) you will likely get more mileage out of Favored Foe.
Also think of what you will get with the alternative. Favored Enemy can be pretty niche in use but could be very very helpful in the right campaign.
If you are in a campaign that is mostly you fighting goblins and trying to find their strongholds would be a situation where I think Favored Enemy would be a better use. If combat is something that is more overt in the campaign I would edge towards favored foe.
If you are in a campaign that is mostly you fighting goblins and trying to find their strongholds would be a situation where I think Favored Enemy would be a better use. If combat is something that is more overt in the campaign I would edge towards favored foe.
This scenario is why most people don't like like Favored foe or favored terrain. If you take it as a one trick pony it becomes one and done. Instead plan around smart FE choices that you as a player feel like you can use under most circumstances. As a player you want to select creatures you'd want to be passing lots of check for. I'd rather be an expert in fiends or beasts than goblins. Beasts are common so you'd use it alot. fiends have alot of specialized details in their stat blocks and special effects on Items or spells. when I ask a dm a question about fiends and he asks me to roll That's when I want the bonus. Knowledge of fiends can be good even if you are not in a campaign with them. You can eliminate speculation about them. talk to religious orders intelligently. setup a frame the daemons in a "devil did it" scenario. the list goes on. Basically Favored enemy requires thought and should be a part of your character. It should not be off-the-cuff choices.
If you are in a campaign that is mostly you fighting goblins and trying to find their strongholds would be a situation where I think Favored Enemy would be a better use. If combat is something that is more overt in the campaign I would edge towards favored foe.
This scenario is why most people don't like like Favored foe or favored terrain. If you take it as a one trick pony it becomes one and done. Instead plan around smart FE choices that you as a player feel like you can use under most circumstances. As a player you want to select creatures you'd want to be passing lots of check for. I'd rather be an expert in fiends or beasts than goblins. Beasts are common so you'd use it alot. fiends have alot of specialized details in their stat blocks and special effects on Items or spells. when I ask a dm a question about fiends and he asks me to roll That's when I want the bonus. Knowledge of fiends can be good even if you are not in a campaign with them. You can eliminate speculation about them. talk to religious orders intelligently. setup a frame the daemons in a "devil did it" scenario. the list goes on. Basically Favored enemy requires thought and should be a part of your character. It should not be off-the-cuff choices.
Yeah basically if you know for a fact you will be facing a certain type of enemy a lot in a campaign it would likely be the better bet but the issue I routinely see is that variety in enemy types prevents it from being useful a lot of the time.
Foe is not that amazing either is the key point and honestly its a crap shoot on which one is more useful as I personally find them both kind of lackluster.
I think You missed my point. don't plan on facing specific enemies because you will be disappointed when they are gone. Plan on what you can use throughout your career as a ranger. it should be something you want to use even if your not facing that specific type.
I think You missed my point. don't plan on facing specific enemies because you will be disappointed when they are gone. Plan on what you can use throughout your career as a ranger. it should be something you want to use even if your not facing that specific type.
Then the feature is not useful at all then. I would go favored foe. Favored enemy only works on those enemies that you select so you pretty much have to plan to face them.
I really hope they fix this ability and NOT have it take concentration. Starting with 1d4 once per turn and lasting only a min is pathetic. It would be wonderful as-is if it didn’t take concentration. Having it compete with Hunter’s Mark (1d6 damage per hit, lasting for 1 hour and is transferable) makes it useless. The only benefit is if you run out of spell slots and can’t cast HM you still have the option to do a tiny bit of extra damage. It’s frustrating to see them buff Bladesingers and allowing them to attack and cast a cantrip in a single action (something not even E-knights can do) on an already ridiculously broken and OP sub-class yet they won’t even let Ranger trade in the entire favored enemy ability to gain a tiny damage bump without competing for concentration. Sometimes I just don’t understand the thought process of the teams that are tasked with balancing the classes and sub-classes. I’ve played D&D since 2nd edition and I’ve Rarely seen a sub-class as broken as Bladesinger yet they will STILL turn around and buff it yet leaving the 5e ranger (a class in dire need of a revamp) nothing that fixes the class and in fact makes it worse. I love Rangers and am disappointed in how dirty 5e has done the class and how they refuse to make any changes that are meaningful and would fix it. Favored Foe is terrible. It’s is nothing like the ability the community play tested for Tasha’s. The class variant UA for favored Foe was decent but what the release was something very different and awful.
If you are in a campaign that is mostly you fighting goblins and trying to find their strongholds would be a situation where I think Favored Enemy would be a better use. If combat is something that is more overt in the campaign I would edge towards favored foe.
This scenario is why most people don't like like Favored foe or favored terrain. If you take it as a one trick pony it becomes one and done. Instead plan around smart FE choices that you as a player feel like you can use under most circumstances. As a player you want to select creatures you'd want to be passing lots of check for. I'd rather be an expert in fiends or beasts than goblins. Beasts are common so you'd use it alot. fiends have alot of specialized details in their stat blocks and special effects on Items or spells. when I ask a dm a question about fiends and he asks me to roll That's when I want the bonus. Knowledge of fiends can be good even if you are not in a campaign with them. You can eliminate speculation about them. talk to religious orders intelligently. setup a frame the daemons in a "devil did it" scenario. the list goes on. Basically Favored enemy requires thought and should be a part of your character. It should not be off-the-cuff choices.
Yeah basically if you know for a fact you will be facing a certain type of enemy a lot in a campaign it would likely be the better bet but the issue I routinely see is that variety in enemy types prevents it from being useful a lot of the time.
Foe is not that amazing either is the key point and honestly its a crap shoot on which one is more useful as I personally find them both kind of lackluster.
Humanoids and picking their subtypes is one type of creature I basically never pick for Favored Enemy. Them and Oozes are only useful when you know you've got a campaign that's going to get into them alot like an Urban campaign for humanoids. And I tell players if I'm doing a theme that actually involves them because they do need a game to kind of revolve around them to an extent. I can understand Humanoid as a total group being too strong. But the way it breaks down is much too weak. And I'm one that does make use of Natural Explorer and Favored Foe at times.
I am creating a level 1 Satyr Ranger for the next campaign I am in and need some input. As a rule I like to steer clear of Hunter’s Mark but will be taking Zephyr Strike at level 2, which requires concentration anyway. I’d like input as to whether I should take the Favored Foe optional class feature. My character has no actual enemies so Favored Enemy is unnecessary, but could come into play anyway. In case it comes up in discussion, Favored Enemy requires concentration also.
I think you should take favored foe. As you are someone that says they stay away of hunter's mark you are a fascinating person to try favored foe! Please do so and let us know how it played for your character, if you would be so kind.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
I am creating a level 1 Satyr Ranger for the next campaign I am in and need some input. As a rule I like to steer clear of Hunter’s Mark but will be taking Zephyr Strike at level 2, which requires concentration anyway. I’d like input as to whether I should take the Favored Foe optional class feature. My character has no actual enemies so Favored Enemy is unnecessary, but could come into play anyway. In case it comes up in discussion, Favored Enemy requires concentration also.
Come participate in the Competition of the Finest Brews, Edition XXVIII?
My homebrew stuff:
Spells, Monsters, Magic Items, Feats, Subclasses.
I am an Archfey, but nobody seems to notice.
Extended Signature
I like the extra damage From HM or favored foe. (even if i sometimes use other concentration spells)That being said I also Prefer favored enemy. It works on ally creatures just as much as non- allies. Having the boosts to beasts gives a bonus when tracking any humanoid party with Beast mounts. Most dms give me the beast boost to poison harvesting checks as well. Also, it means I probably wont need some animal control spells if I can succeed at regular checks instead. Lots of other checks apply for other creatures but I get alot of mileage out of FE:beasts.
You can use both at the same round as well just dropping your Concentration from one or another.
Favored Foe is quite useful when you have plenty uses for your bonus action like TWFers, Horizon Walkers and Beastmasters.
This basically....if you are planning to have a lot of BA in your build (Crossbow expert, Polearm master, etc...) you will likely get more mileage out of Favored Foe.
Also think of what you will get with the alternative. Favored Enemy can be pretty niche in use but could be very very helpful in the right campaign.
If you are in a campaign that is mostly you fighting goblins and trying to find their strongholds would be a situation where I think Favored Enemy would be a better use. If combat is something that is more overt in the campaign I would edge towards favored foe.
This scenario is why most people don't like like Favored foe or favored terrain. If you take it as a one trick pony it becomes one and done. Instead plan around smart FE choices that you as a player feel like you can use under most circumstances. As a player you want to select creatures you'd want to be passing lots of check for. I'd rather be an expert in fiends or beasts than goblins. Beasts are common so you'd use it alot. fiends have alot of specialized details in their stat blocks and special effects on Items or spells. when I ask a dm a question about fiends and he asks me to roll That's when I want the bonus. Knowledge of fiends can be good even if you are not in a campaign with them. You can eliminate speculation about them. talk to religious orders intelligently. setup a frame the daemons in a "devil did it" scenario. the list goes on. Basically Favored enemy requires thought and should be a part of your character. It should not be off-the-cuff choices.
Yeah basically if you know for a fact you will be facing a certain type of enemy a lot in a campaign it would likely be the better bet but the issue I routinely see is that variety in enemy types prevents it from being useful a lot of the time.
Foe is not that amazing either is the key point and honestly its a crap shoot on which one is more useful as I personally find them both kind of lackluster.
I think You missed my point. don't plan on facing specific enemies because you will be disappointed when they are gone. Plan on what you can use throughout your career as a ranger. it should be something you want to use even if your not facing that specific type.
Then the feature is not useful at all then. I would go favored foe. Favored enemy only works on those enemies that you select so you pretty much have to plan to face them.
I really hope they fix this ability and NOT have it take concentration. Starting with 1d4 once per turn and lasting only a min is pathetic. It would be wonderful as-is if it didn’t take concentration. Having it compete with Hunter’s Mark (1d6 damage per hit, lasting for 1 hour and is transferable) makes it useless. The only benefit is if you run out of spell slots and can’t cast HM you still have the option to do a tiny bit of extra damage. It’s frustrating to see them buff Bladesingers and allowing them to attack and cast a cantrip in a single action (something not even E-knights can do) on an already ridiculously broken and OP sub-class yet they won’t even let Ranger trade in the entire favored enemy ability to gain a tiny damage bump without competing for concentration. Sometimes I just don’t understand the thought process of the teams that are tasked with balancing the classes and sub-classes. I’ve played D&D since 2nd edition and I’ve Rarely seen a sub-class as broken as Bladesinger yet they will STILL turn around and buff it yet leaving the 5e ranger (a class in dire need of a revamp) nothing that fixes the class and in fact makes it worse. I love Rangers and am disappointed in how dirty 5e has done the class and how they refuse to make any changes that are meaningful and would fix it. Favored Foe is terrible. It’s is nothing like the ability the community play tested for Tasha’s. The class variant UA for favored Foe was decent but what the release was something very different and awful.
Humanoids and picking their subtypes is one type of creature I basically never pick for Favored Enemy. Them and Oozes are only useful when you know you've got a campaign that's going to get into them alot like an Urban campaign for humanoids. And I tell players if I'm doing a theme that actually involves them because they do need a game to kind of revolve around them to an extent. I can understand Humanoid as a total group being too strong. But the way it breaks down is much too weak. And I'm one that does make use of Natural Explorer and Favored Foe at times.
I think you should take favored foe. As you are someone that says they stay away of hunter's mark you are a fascinating person to try favored foe! Please do so and let us know how it played for your character, if you would be so kind.