Monster slay is a bit more specialised so would be better in a campaign where you know roughly the type of monsters your after. Also some of their features are better suited to hunting evil mages, which may or may not be of use to you. Hunter gives you a bit more of an opportunity to fix your build as you level up, also it tends to be pretty good at going after almost any threat to civilisation. However without the extra spells other conclaves get it can be a little under powered. If it is just about getting the deadliest ranger conclave, gloom stalker might be worth considering. if your not tied to ranger then blood hunters are definitely worth a look.
Not sure where the idea that Monster Slayer is campaign dependent is coming from?
While protection from evil and good and magic circle only work against certain creature types, and it's possible those might not come up at all, they also cover a pretty wide range. It's not like you're really losing anything by having a free spell you don't use often, especially when the Hunter doesn't get any.
But all of the Monster Slayer's core features will work with anything, and there aren't really any situations where you can't use any of them, so it should serve you well.
As for which one you should take? Which one fits what you want from the character best? If you have an idea of what you want your character to be like, then you should always start by picking the sub-class that fits that idea best, and only change if you encounter some mechanics that don't quite work for you. But personally I don't think you can go wrong with either option, as it's going to be very, very rare that you can't benefit from at least some of the sub-class features of either of these.
Monster Slayers in plain bad because of bonus action clog. Hunter is straight up better and enables a very fun and different play style that is the “minion-killer”. Between Horde Breaker, Hail of Thorns and extra attack, you can have more efficient ways to kill swarms of weaker enemies that could make your AoE caster Allie’s get jealous.
choose hunter, not only better features but also flavor, hunter is the type “that must be magic!” “nope” ranger and specialization in non-magic ways to survive in the wild, while monter slayer is more the kind of a semi-bounty hunter, traveling from town to town ,living of killing monsters.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
I am making a Simic hybrid, outlander PC, theyre both interesting but i want my PC to be "i became a monster to protect people from real ones"
Hunter provides me alot of Vesatility along with my Simic Hybrid race
Monster Slayer helps me fight All sorts of monsters and creatures
Which should i make??
Monster slay is a bit more specialised so would be better in a campaign where you know roughly the type of monsters your after. Also some of their features are better suited to hunting evil mages, which may or may not be of use to you. Hunter gives you a bit more of an opportunity to fix your build as you level up, also it tends to be pretty good at going after almost any threat to civilisation. However without the extra spells other conclaves get it can be a little under powered. If it is just about getting the deadliest ranger conclave, gloom stalker might be worth considering.
if your not tied to ranger then blood hunters are definitely worth a look.
Monster slayer is very campaign and dm dependent.
However a ranger by itself is enough to do ok in any campaign and if Monster slayer appeals to you take it and have creative fun with it.
If you want to just have a reliable part in place take hunter.
Not sure where the idea that Monster Slayer is campaign dependent is coming from?
While protection from evil and good and magic circle only work against certain creature types, and it's possible those might not come up at all, they also cover a pretty wide range. It's not like you're really losing anything by having a free spell you don't use often, especially when the Hunter doesn't get any.
But all of the Monster Slayer's core features will work with anything, and there aren't really any situations where you can't use any of them, so it should serve you well.
As for which one you should take? Which one fits what you want from the character best? If you have an idea of what you want your character to be like, then you should always start by picking the sub-class that fits that idea best, and only change if you encounter some mechanics that don't quite work for you. But personally I don't think you can go wrong with either option, as it's going to be very, very rare that you can't benefit from at least some of the sub-class features of either of these.
Characters: Bullette, Chortle, Dracarys Noir, Edward Merryspell, Habard Ashery, Legion, Peregrine
My Homebrew: Feats | Items | Monsters | Spells | Subclasses | Races
Guides: Creating Sub-Races Using Trait Options
WIP (feedback needed): Blood Mage, Chromatic Sorcerers, Summoner, Trickster Domain, Unlucky, Way of the Daoist (Drunken Master), Weapon Smith
Please don't reply to my posts unless you've read what they actually say.
Monster Slayers in plain bad because of bonus action clog. Hunter is straight up better and enables a very fun and different play style that is the “minion-killer”. Between Horde Breaker, Hail of Thorns and extra attack, you can have more efficient ways to kill swarms of weaker enemies that could make your AoE caster Allie’s get jealous.
choose hunter, not only better features but also flavor, hunter is the type “that must be magic!” “nope” ranger and specialization in non-magic ways to survive in the wild, while monter slayer is more the kind of a semi-bounty hunter, traveling from town to town ,living of killing monsters.