monster Hunter ranger seems way OP

[Camman1984]

as the title suggests, at level 3 you can look at a creature and basically have the power to read its stat block from the dmg, and as long as you have another creature to move it to (see your party members) you can use it an infintie number of times.

then at 11th level you get get unlimited use ability that allows you to block any teleporting, polymorphing, size change, shape change, plane shift, gaseous form, that's a big long list of abilities with no caveats and is purely an opposed wisdom check. 'change its shape' is also so vague that simply lifting a leg to make a step could potentially be included.

this needs a rework


on the other hand the peace-adin looks like a fun and characterful way to fall out with your party at every encounter :)

[Specter]

Meh, most resistances and etc. are intuitive anyway. Any person with an INT of 10 would know that crushing a skeleton is better than stabbing a bone.

And the level 11 ability is good, but not overpowered compared to Volley, for instance.

[Armored Walrus]

The level 3 is not OP, it's just IC justification for meta-gaming by players that already have the MM memorized anyway. :P

[Camman1984]

I admit that the most basic resistances are intuitive, but would that same int 10 person know whether that obscure demon is immune to all damage except a specific type of date metal, or maybe even that that specific, unnamed individual has some kind of rebuke damage ability case on him (like hellish rebuke).

it makes sense versus he most common things you might see, but it has no limits, and no intelligence or test requirements. an epic level caster with a custom defensive spell with layers of resistances, and a nice rebuke if you get through. He could have this level 3 guy look at him and be able to tell how to defeat him and what risks damaging might entail.

[Camman1984]

The level 3 is not OP, it's just IC justification for meta-gaming by players that already have the MM memorized anyway. :P

😂 I definitely know a few players who already have this ability if that is the reasoning

[Pex]

The level 3 is not OP, it's just IC justification for meta-gaming by players that already have the MM memorized anyway. :P

Pretty much. It's not even cynical. Players absolutely completely new to D&D/RPGs aren't going to know anything, but those who have played since forever know what's what. Also despite that there is the reverse meta-game, information the character really does know in character but the player hasn't a clue he should know it. Knowledge checks covers both. This class ability just gets rid of the roll for an autosuccess.

[Armored Walrus]

It's hard not to metagame for those of us who have been playing since the '90s. If I throw a troll in front of my group, they have two options. Metagame by immediately switching to fire attacks, or metagame by consciously not using fire attacks in order to avoid metagaming. Fortunately, as you said, there are knowledge skill checks for this, but I don't think Slayer 3 breaks anything.

[Draco4472]

I think it's fine. A ranger with favored enemy Undead would reasonably already know what certain undead are resistant to, having studied how to kill them, and already be able to inform his party members about this. Some DM's require a Nature/Arcana check for this (made with advantage as I would point out due to the favored enemy feature) with a DC no greater then 13.

What's the point in being a demon or vampire hunter if you don't know how to kill them? What's the point if you can't stop either from teleporting 500 feet away as you're swarmed by their minions with no way to reach them?

[Tetrasodium]

It's hard not to metagame for those of us who have been playing since the '90s. If I throw a troll in front of my group, they have two options. Metagame by immediately switching to fire attacks, or metagame by consciously not using fire attacks in order to avoid metagaming. Fortunately, as you said, there are knowledge skill checks for this, but I don't think Slayer 3 breaks anything.

agreed. There are enough things able to regenerate that even a 6-8 int character is likely to know kill it with fire to be sure my sheer virtue of living in a world where these things exist. I've been in groups where we dismembe, burn , & spread the ashes for everything after killing it from doppelgangers to were-critters that might regenerate simply because nobody knew for sure if it needed anything special.

In a world where there are scary things needing those sort of measure to properly kill them, it's reasonable to do it just to be safe. A character would need to be pretty much raised by wolves till the party found them to not know such a basic just in case step.

[Hrugner]

I'm more worried about it's value in recognizing hidden or disguised threats. "Hey, did you notice that Hank down at the mill takes extra damage from silver and can only die if he's decapitated and his corpse consecrated? Man, what is with that guy?" or "So, I noticed the king was looking fairly impervious to fire damage this morning, is that a new thing?"

It should require an attack action before being used at the very least.

[Sicarius Victis]

as the title suggests, at level 3 you can look at a creature and basically have the power to read its stat block from the dmg,

Indeed, because vulnerabilities, resistances, immunities, and damage-triggering effects basically are a creatures entire statblock.


and as long as you have another creature to move it to (see your party members) you can use it an infintie number of times.

It's already infinite, you don't need to target your party members with it.


'change its shape' is also so vague that simply lifting a leg to make a step could potentially be included.

No, it really couldn't, and if anybody actually tried that they'd get laughed out of their group.

[Malifice]

I'm more worried about it's value in recognizing hidden or disguised threats. "Hey, did you notice that Hank down at the mill takes extra damage from silver and can only die if he's decapitated and his corpse consecrated? Man, what is with that guy?" or "So, I noticed the king was looking fairly impervious to fire damage this morning, is that a new thing?"

It should require an attack action before being used at the very least.

There is an implication there that the ability can only used in combat.

[Pex]

Some DMs need to learn it is not an atrocity for players to know things.

[Hrugner]

There is an implication there that the ability can only used in combat.

That isn't really an implication I picked up on. I don't see anything in the description that points to that interpretation unless we take the phrase "study and unravel a creature’s defenses" to imply that it requires their defenses to be in use at the time. That would imply quite a bit of activity beyond spending a bonus action.

[Chaosmancer]

I'm more worried about it's value in recognizing hidden or disguised threats. "Hey, did you notice that Hank down at the mill takes extra damage from silver and can only die if he's decapitated and his corpse consecrated? Man, what is with that guy?" or "So, I noticed the king was looking fairly impervious to fire damage this morning, is that a new thing?"

It should require an attack action before being used at the very least.

See, I hear this issue and i wonder, why are they using this ability on that person?

Unless they have reason to suspect Hank of anything they aren't going to target him with this sort of ability.

And if you've got a slayer on the team and you're building this sort of mystery, plan for this to happen. Other classes get information gathering abilities, you just need to know the players and the characters.

For example, speak with dead can also ruin a werewolf mystery if you don't plan for it

[Hrugner]

Speak with dead has a cost associated with it, so you need a good idea of which corpse you need to get talking, an at will ability is in an entirely different boat. The question of why the slayer would be scrutinizing every potentially living thing with his at will bonus action ability would come down to the character, but they've already dedicated themselves to slaying monsters so this doesn't seem like too much of a reach.

[Malifice]

Speak with dead has a cost associated with it, so you need a good idea of which corpse you need to get talking, an at will ability is in an entirely different boat. The question of why the slayer would be scrutinizing every potentially living thing with his at will bonus action ability would come down to the character, but they've already dedicated themselves to slaying monsters so this doesn't seem like too much of a reach.

Cool man; in my campaigns Id just say no.

[Puh Laden]

This feels like one of those abilities that will be worded more carefully in the final iteration, like the swashbuckler's rakish audacity. By fluff, it doesn't seem like it should bypass disguises. Though if you want to make sure it doesn't have out of combat use just require that initiative must currently be in play.

[Malifice]

This feels like one of those abilities that will be worded more carefully in the final iteration, like the swashbuckler's rakish audacity. By fluff, it doesn't seem like it should bypass disguises. Though if you want to make sure it doesn't have out of combat use just require that initiative must currently be in play.

Yeah as a DM I would probably make it opposed to deception versus insight check. The monster hunter just gets more information on a successful insight check.

[Hrugner]

Cool man; in my campaigns Id just say no.

Right, so you agree with me that as written it's entirely too potent an ability.

Making the ability overtly threatening, only usable during combat, only when taking the attack action or only against a hostile creature, would all work as possible changes to the ability to keep this ability from becoming a problem. There should also be something preventing it from automatically overcoming deliberate attempts to disguise the nature of the creature.