Hunter's Mark vs Favored Foe: which is better?

[Witty Username]

So, I saw this video earlier today and it brought up some interesting points.
Video by Pack Tactics (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-12dA7JPKo4)

One of them being that favored foe is stronger than hunter's mark primarily because it does not use a bonus action or a spell slot. but also the limits on favored foe, the once per turn and smaller damage die don't actually reduce damage in comparison all that much unless you are hitting attacks very consistently.
Mulling it over I am inclined to agree.
XBE builds put themselves at a disadvantage using hunter's mark, as do PAM builds, due to the damage loss during the first round.
GWM w/ greatsword has similar problems, since its bonus action use is less but it would come up whenever you would want to move the mark.
And this isn't getting into onboard Ranger abilities like Beastmaster Tasha's companions or slayer's prey.

Getting into the math by fifth level assuming 60% accuracy to make the math go:
hunter's mark + extra attack
.6(1d6) *2 = 4.2 average damage from hunters mark
Favored Foe + extra attack + a bonus action attack
.936(1d4) =2.34 average damage from favored foe.
Meaning the bonus action attack only needs to do an average damage of 1.86 to make up the difference.

What do you people think?

[Kuulvheysoon]

I mean, the damage die for Favored Foe literally increases at 6th level to 1d6, evening out the damage (and 1d8 at 14th level, but that's out of the scope of the current question).

Favored Foe also leaves your spell slots free, and lets you use that BA to use one of the ranger BA damage boosts like Monster Hunter's Slayer's Prey for an additional 1d6 damage.

[Kane0]

Hunter's Mark:
+ Damage per hit rather than once per turn
+ 1d6 at level
+ Transferrable between targets
+ Long duration, better with upcasting
+ Advantage to find target
- Uses a spell slot
- Uses a Bonus Action
- 90' Range
- Uses concentration

Favored Foe:
+ Actionless, triggered on a hit
+ [Prof bonus] uses per LR
+ d8 damage at level 14
+ applies to all attacks, not just weapon attacks
- Replaces Favored Enemy (not a huge loss, but bears mentioning)
- Starts as d4 damage
- 1 Minute duration
- Cannot be moved to new targets
- Uses concentration

Both have their place.

[JonBeowulf]

I'm greedy... why not both? FF+HM to smack the crap out of one enemy, then move HM to whatever is still causing a problem.

Both use concentration... duh.:smallredface:

[verbatim]

I feel like Favored Foe is not sufficiently better to warrant taking it over Favored Enemy imo.

[Man_Over_Game]

So, I saw this video earlier today and it brought up some interesting points.
Video by Pack Tactics (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-12dA7JPKo4)

One of them being that favored foe is stronger than hunter's mark primarily because it does not use a bonus action or a spell slot. but also the limits on favored foe, the once per turn and smaller damage die don't actually reduce damage in comparison all that much unless you are hitting attacks very consistently.
Mulling it over I am inclined to agree.
XBE builds put themselves at a disadvantage using hunter's mark, as do PAM builds, due to the damage loss during the first round.
GWM w/ greatsword has similar problems, since its bonus action use is less but it would come up whenever you would want to move the mark.
And this isn't getting into onboard Ranger abilities like Beastmaster Tasha's companions or slayer's prey.

Getting into the math by fifth level assuming 60% accuracy to make the math go:
hunter's mark + extra attack
.6(1d6) *2 = 4.2 average damage from hunters mark
Favored Foe + extra attack + a bonus action attack
.936(1d4) =2.34 average damage from favored foe.
Meaning the bonus action attack only needs to do an average damage of 1.86 to make up the difference.

What do you people think?

That's about what I expected. HM is slightly better, but FF is less expensive.

Unfortunately, the difference is small enough to me for them to just feel like the same feature. I'd make it a Concentration-less, once-per-encounter that gives you +1d4 to hit against that target once per turn (can only roll once a turn, but you can roll the 1d4 after you see the result). That way, it has synergy with both Hunter's Mark and his attack rider spells, instead of just adding too many Concentration effects that mess with one another.

[RogueJK]

Also important to note that Favored Foe works on all attacks, not just weapon attacks like Hunter's Mark. Therefore, you can apply that bonus damage to spell attacks too, which is especially helpful if you're a multiclass character like a Ranger/Cleric or Ranger/Druid, or a Ranger with the Druidic Warrior fighting style.

[Man_Over_Game]

Also important to note that Favored Foe works on all attacks, not just weapon attacks like Hunter's Mark. Therefore, you can apply that bonus damage to spell attacks too, which is especially helpful if you're a multiclass character like a Ranger/Cleric or Ranger/Druid, or a Ranger with the Druidic Warrior fighting style.

Honestly, though, those are kinda poor synergies. You're more likely to have more use of your Concentration with those combinations and wouldn't be using either HM or FF all that much. Most spell attacks you'd be making with those classes are either fairly rare or basically satisfy most of the same benefits of a weapon attack (like Thorn Whip). Thorn Whip also comes with a 30ft range, so it's a lot more convenient to use for the kinds of classes that would use Shillelagh.

I could see Shillelagh getting some use out of something like a Monk/Druid, but otherwise it's a very niche tool that doesn't do as much as you think it does without a lot of investment (and by that time, anything else you'd invest into instead would be at least as good). Personally, I'd change it to allow you to cast a Touch spell through the Shillelagh by ending Shillelagh. That way, it's worth a lot of good DPS to the classes who'd normally use it (like Druids) without needing Extra Attack by just costing additional resources (with this example essentially being to deal extra damage by spending your Bonus Action).

[Segev]

I feel like Favored Foe is not sufficiently better to warrant taking it over Favored Enemy imo.

It's actually in an interesting place. Favored Enemy is next to useless in 5e, because they didn't expand the exploration pillar enough to give it many hooks, and they removed all combat applications from it. Weirdly so, because in prior editions, that's almost ALL Favored Enemy did: made you better at FIGHTING such enemies.

Favored Foe is trying to use the "favored" language to imply it's going that way, but it really isn't, because it's any critter you happen to hit. All it does is encourage hitting the same enemy at least once per round.

But because Favored Enemy is (practically) just an extra language, Favored Foe has an extremely low bar to hurdle to be a purely-better feature.

Unfortunately, Favored Foe is also in competition with hunter's mark; yes, you get Favored Foe without a spell selection, but it is significantly weaker than hunter's mark due to anti-synergy with multiple attacks per round. Remember, not only does level 5 give extra attack, and not only does Gloom Stalker (oft considered one of the best Ranger subclasses) give another extra attack once per combat, but Rangers have a history of being dual wielders. This is, admittedly, not super well-supported in 5e, but they do have the dual-wielder fighting style open to them, at the least.

Favored Foe scales much more slowly than sneak attack, which means the sneak attack argument of "multiple attacks for more chances to land the one shot of it you can do per round" falls a bit flat, too.

Compared to hunter's mark, Favored Foe never does as much damage, because hunter's mark applies to every attack, so by the time Favored Foe has a d6, hunter's mark is landing 2-3 times as often. Even when Favored Foe goes up to a d8, it's not keeping up with 2d6 or 3d6. Both require Concentration, and hunter's mark costs a spell slot and a spell known, but hunter's mark is transferrable while Favored Foe is not. Hunter's mark occasionally costs you a bonus action, but will still be doing better than Favored Foe for total damage.

Favored Foe is better than Favored Enemy, almost without any question. It's main loss to it is in flavor. (Favored Foe is extremely bland, and stretches the definition of "favored" to the point of torture in order to have a similar name while losing every bit of what Favored Enemy's historic flavor was.) But Favored Foe is in direct competition for use with hunter's mark, to the point of making the diminished returns of taking both pretty expensive, so there's an effective trade-off of whether you take Favored Foe or hunter's mark. While you can take Favored Foe as a "poor man's hunter's mark" if you really need the spell known, it's still a disappointing second cousin. Taking it means you will never want hunter's mark, not because Favored Foe is that good, but because hunter's mark can't be used in conjunction with it and is not ENOUGH better to spend the spell known on it.

But it's not Favored Enemy that makes Favored Foe "not good enough." It's that Favored Foe, despite being better than Favored Enemy on almost an objectively inarguable level, is still not good enough for a level 1 Ranger feature.

[Man_Over_Game]

But it's not Favored Enemy that makes Favored Foe "not good enough." It's that Favored Foe, despite being better than Favored Enemy on almost an objectively inarguable level, is still not good enough for a level 1 Ranger feature.

Well said. The fact that it doesn't synergize with the Ranger at all is just insulting, tbh. The ranger has so many anti-synergies in his kit, it feels like the ranger has to struggle against himself all the time (while classes like the Fighter or Barbarian have no such difficulties).

Antisynergies are great for forcing players to adapt their strategies, but that philosophy doesn't hold weight when 80% of the solution to your problems is "Deal More Damage", and most of the powers the Ranger gets involve "Dealing More Damage".

So, in the end, it doesn't really matter whether you pick FF or HM, which means that it is a distinct situation where the player's agency was taken away from them.

[Segev]

Well said. The fact that it doesn't synergize with the Ranger at all is just insulting, tbh. The ranger has so many anti-synergies in his kit, it feels like the ranger has to struggle against himself all the time (while classes like the Fighter or Barbarian have no such difficulties).

Antisynergies are great for forcing players to diversify, but that philosophy doesn't hold weight when 80% of the solution to your problems is "Deal More Damage", and most of the powers the Ranger gets involve "Dealing More Damage".

So, in the end, it doesn't really matter whether you pick FF or HM, which means that it is a distinct situation where the player's agency was taken away from them.

Yeah. Back in Feb. or so, I was toying with a fix for Favored Enemy (https://forums.giantitp.com/showthread.php?626203-Ranger-Features-Favored-Quarry-amp-Favored-Terrain&highlight=favored+enemy+segev). It still needs work - it's probably too strong in some options, and it also isn't as tightly themed as I'd like it to be - but the idea was to take the notion of a "Favored Enemy" but make it still broadly applicable.

One of the flaws of Favored Enemy in past editions is that Rangers risked being too good if they chose "right" for a campaign, too weak if they chose "wrong," and otherwise were spiky vs. some things but not others. It made it hard to balance the feature: should the Ranger be "on par" with everyone else when facing his favored enemy, as others might have to expend some resources to be at their best in the same fights? Or should he be on par normally, with favored enemies being something he's notably stronger against? This is so campaign-dependent it hurts.

Favored Foe, as written in TCE, provides the breadth of applicability required, but loses all flavor of the Ranger actually being an expert at facing certain critters.

The idea in the linked thread is to give bonuses that are theoretically great against the kind of enemy in question, but also are applicable in situations where that enemy isn't around. I don't think I did that well enough with everything there, but that was the goal.

[MaxWilson]

It's actually in an interesting place. Favored Enemy is next to useless in 5e, because they didn't expand the exploration pillar enough to give it many hooks, and they removed all combat applications from it. Weirdly so, because in prior editions, that's almost ALL Favored Enemy did: made you better at FIGHTING such enemies.

Favored Foe is trying to use the "favored" language to imply it's going that way, but it really isn't, because it's any critter you happen to hit. All it does is encourage hitting the same enemy at least once per round.

But because Favored Enemy is (practically) just an extra language, Favored Foe has an extremely low bar to hurdle to be a purely-better feature.

Unfortunately, Favored Foe is also in competition with hunter's mark; yes, you get Favored Foe without a spell selection, but it is significantly weaker than hunter's mark due to anti-synergy with multiple attacks per round. Remember, not only does level 5 give extra attack, and not only does Gloom Stalker (oft considered one of the best Ranger subclasses) give another extra attack once per combat, but Rangers have a history of being dual wielders. This is, admittedly, not super well-supported in 5e, but they do have the dual-wielder fighting style open to them, at the least.

Favored Foe scales much more slowly than sneak attack, which means the sneak attack argument of "multiple attacks for more chances to land the one shot of it you can do per round" falls a bit flat, too.

Compared to hunter's mark, Favored Foe never does as much damage, because hunter's mark applies to every attack, so by the time Favored Foe has a d6, hunter's mark is landing 2-3 times as often. Even when Favored Foe goes up to a d8, it's not keeping up with 2d6 or 3d6. Both require Concentration, and hunter's mark costs a spell slot and a spell known, but hunter's mark is transferrable while Favored Foe is not. Hunter's mark occasionally costs you a bonus action, but will still be doing better than Favored Foe for total damage.

Favored Foe is better than Favored Enemy, almost without any question. It's main loss to it is in flavor. (Favored Foe is extremely bland, and stretches the definition of "favored" to the point of torture in order to have a similar name while losing every bit of what Favored Enemy's historic flavor was.) But Favored Foe is in direct competition for use with hunter's mark, to the point of making the diminished returns of taking both pretty expensive, so there's an effective trade-off of whether you take Favored Foe or hunter's mark. While you can take Favored Foe as a "poor man's hunter's mark" if you really need the spell known, it's still a disappointing second cousin. Taking it means you will never want hunter's mark, not because Favored Foe is that good, but because hunter's mark can't be used in conjunction with it and is not ENOUGH better to spend the spell known on it.

But it's not Favored Enemy that makes Favored Foe "not good enough." It's that Favored Foe, despite being better than Favored Enemy on almost an objectively inarguable level, is still not good enough for a level 1 Ranger feature.

This was very thorough and persuasive--a high-effort post. Thank you! I never really thought about this aspect of Tasha's before but you laid things out very well.

[Abracadangit]

It's actually in an interesting place. Favored Enemy is next to useless in 5e, because they didn't expand the exploration pillar enough to give it many hooks, and they removed all combat applications from it. Weirdly so, because in prior editions, that's almost ALL Favored Enemy did: made you better at FIGHTING such enemies.

Favored Foe is trying to use the "favored" language to imply it's going that way, but it really isn't, because it's any critter you happen to hit. All it does is encourage hitting the same enemy at least once per round.

But because Favored Enemy is (practically) just an extra language, Favored Foe has an extremely low bar to hurdle to be a purely-better feature.

Unfortunately, Favored Foe is also in competition with hunter's mark; yes, you get Favored Foe without a spell selection, but it is significantly weaker than hunter's mark due to anti-synergy with multiple attacks per round. Remember, not only does level 5 give extra attack, and not only does Gloom Stalker (oft considered one of the best Ranger subclasses) give another extra attack once per combat, but Rangers have a history of being dual wielders. This is, admittedly, not super well-supported in 5e, but they do have the dual-wielder fighting style open to them, at the least.

Favored Foe scales much more slowly than sneak attack, which means the sneak attack argument of "multiple attacks for more chances to land the one shot of it you can do per round" falls a bit flat, too.

Compared to hunter's mark, Favored Foe never does as much damage, because hunter's mark applies to every attack, so by the time Favored Foe has a d6, hunter's mark is landing 2-3 times as often. Even when Favored Foe goes up to a d8, it's not keeping up with 2d6 or 3d6. Both require Concentration, and hunter's mark costs a spell slot and a spell known, but hunter's mark is transferrable while Favored Foe is not. Hunter's mark occasionally costs you a bonus action, but will still be doing better than Favored Foe for total damage.

Favored Foe is better than Favored Enemy, almost without any question. It's main loss to it is in flavor. (Favored Foe is extremely bland, and stretches the definition of "favored" to the point of torture in order to have a similar name while losing every bit of what Favored Enemy's historic flavor was.) But Favored Foe is in direct competition for use with hunter's mark, to the point of making the diminished returns of taking both pretty expensive, so there's an effective trade-off of whether you take Favored Foe or hunter's mark. While you can take Favored Foe as a "poor man's hunter's mark" if you really need the spell known, it's still a disappointing second cousin. Taking it means you will never want hunter's mark, not because Favored Foe is that good, but because hunter's mark can't be used in conjunction with it and is not ENOUGH better to spend the spell known on it.

But it's not Favored Enemy that makes Favored Foe "not good enough." It's that Favored Foe, despite being better than Favored Enemy on almost an objectively inarguable level, is still not good enough for a level 1 Ranger feature.

It's interesting, isn't it. Like what is it about the Ranger that presents such a stumbling block for the designers. Is it they don't want something that comes off too sneak attacky, because that would be stepping on the rogue's toes? Are they now afraid to play with Favored Enemy-type mechanics, because they feel like people just don't want to interface with their exploration mechanics at all? (Which isn't entirely the issue, but you know what I mean.)

Sometimes it feels like the designers themselves are wrestling with what they think the Ranger is, these days. There are some things they added in Tasha that I like - if there's one class that should have movement speeds for different situations, it's the ranger - but bonus languages? Does anyone think of the Ranger as a polyglot? I get the idea is that knowing their quarries' languages makes them more adept at hunting them (or something), but again - it feels like an algorithm scanned a bunch of ideas about what the Ranger SHOULD be, and then spat out the mathematical average of all those ideas at once. They all feel like they're somewhere on the dartboard, but still missing the center.

[MaxWilson]

... it feels like an algorithm scanned a bunch of ideas about what the Ranger SHOULD be, and then spat out the mathematical average of all those ideas at once. They all feel like they're somewhere on the dartboard, but still missing the center.

IMO the Ranger wouldn't suffer from going back to just being a Fighter subclass, as it essentially is in 2nd edition. EK with druid spell access and different features (e.g. animal companion summoning at levels 3 (CR 1/8), 10 (CR 1/2), and 15 (CR 1) instead of weapon summoning, spell buffs, and teleportation) would feel like a Ranger to me.

It doesn't need to be its own class.

[verbatim]

It's actually in an interesting place. Favored Enemy is next to useless in 5e, because they didn't expand the exploration pillar enough to give it many hooks, and they removed all combat applications from it. Weirdly so, because in prior editions, that's almost ALL Favored Enemy did: made you better at FIGHTING such enemies.

I was actually unaware they took the damage part out.

I think that Favored Foe clearly isn't a great feature but at the very least has the distinction of not consuming a bonus action or a spell slot, so it is always there for you to take after all your level 1 spell slots are gone or if you have a better use of your bonus action.

[Man_Over_Game]

It's interesting, isn't it. Like what is it about the Ranger that presents such a stumbling block for the designers. Is it they don't want something that comes off too sneak attacky, because that would be stepping on the rogue's toes? Are they now afraid to play with Favored Enemy-type mechanics, because they feel like people just don't want to interface with their exploration mechanics at all? (Which isn't entirely the issue, but you know what I mean.)

Sometimes it feels like the designers themselves are wrestling with what they think the Ranger is, these days. There are some things they added in Tasha that I like - if there's one class that should have movement speeds for different situations, it's the ranger - but bonus languages? Does anyone think of the Ranger as a polyglot? I get the idea is that knowing their quarries' languages makes them more adept at hunting them (or something), but again - it feels like an algorithm scanned a bunch of ideas about what the Ranger SHOULD be, and then spat out the mathematical average of all those ideas at once. They all feel like they're somewhere on the dartboard, but still missing the center.


If I had to guess, it seems like they're adding things thinking it's what we want without actually thinking about the consequences of those decisions in the scope of their game.

For instance, they presumed that players expected Rangers to be good in the wilderness and exploring, so they gave Rangers a bunch of wilderness-related buffs and didn't account for the fact that it basically made exploration nonexistent by doing so.

So when folks complained about the Ranger being bad, they assumed we meant "Weak". So they added a ton more features that added more damage and not much else (look at almost every single Ranger subclass that came out after the PHB) and didn't think about how they actually played differently than any other Fighter (which is why we still have Ranger / Fighter redundancies despite having optional class features and like 10 subclasses each).

And when they added FF, they just thought it'd be exactly what they thought everyone wanted: A way for the Ranger to be stronger. And they still messed it up by not paying enough attention to their game (by basically making it a more-complicated Hunter's Mark that doesn't actually solve any problems).

The playtest version of the Fighter was more like the Battlemaster, but the playtesters thought it was "too complicated (which was still simpler than our current Paladin). So they dumbed it down and jacked the numbers up. Folks were upset that the Warlock didn't have a presence....so WOTC dumbed it down and jacked the numbers up (which is why we now have the Hexblade). Their solution to everything seems to be "Make it dumber with bigger numbers", as if that's everything that we want. But the folks who care about the Ranger have learned that they don't really care that much about super damage numbers, they care about the uniqueness and the versatility that comes with playing one. The stuff you can't get from playing a jacked up Fighter that spams PAM or Sharpshooter.

Wonder how long it'll be before they figure that one out and we finally get Ranger options that focus on utility for once. I'm gonna guess another 2 years. Maybe 3, considering they still haven't figured out how to get Rangers their dual-wielding yet.

[EDIT]: I guess it could also be a business strategy, as well. Things like utility and interactive effects are harder to balance, while damage numbers are universal. So maybe they add a bunch of generic damage via something related to the "color of the week" for that subclass, slap on a few related ribbon features, and it's a new subclass that any player can use and still get value out of it. The devs don't have to worry about people feeling it's imbalanced, and the only consequence is that the game doesn't get anything that's actually new. Out of all of the Tasha's Barbarian and Ranger options, exactly none of them make me think about anything more than "Deal More Damage" or "Take More Hits". They mostly just get better at doing one or the other, while having some flavorful powers that could be summed up as a proficiency (like how the Horizon Walker has very little to do with actual portals). By having content take up as little design space as possible, you take no risks while leaving room open for expansion later.

Frankly, though, I'll preorder the first book that has a Ranger subclass that both doesn't suck AND doesn't add 1dX damage to an attack for its level 3 feature. A man can dream.

[Dark.Revenant]

Favored Foe offers +d4 to +d8 damage on the occasion that you happen to hit something and aren't concentrating on anything at the time, or you want to drop concentration on your current thing. There are a few applications for the latter case: for example, if you use Zephyr Strike and then hit something for the extra damage, but then have no need for the movement bonus afterwards, you can opt to use Favored Foe for an additional die of damage. Another example would be if you use Ensnaring Strike but the enemy succeeds their saving throw against it.

You can easily justify having Favored Foe and Hunter's Mark at the same time. They don't compete very much; if you're in a situation where you'd use Hunter's Mark, you'll cast that first and then there's no need for Favored Foe. If you've done something else with your bonus action, then Favored Foe comes to your aid.

[Segev]

You can easily justify having Favored Foe and Hunter's Mark at the same time. They don't compete very much; if you're in a situation where you'd use Hunter's Mark, you'll cast that first and then there's no need for Favored Foe. If you've done something else with your bonus action, then Favored Foe comes to your aid.

If there wasn't cost to taking both of them, I'd agree, but argue that they should be merged to be cleaner. As-is, even if Favored Enemy doesn't do MUCH, it is a cost to pick up Favored Foe. And Rangers have vanishingly few spells known, so hunter's mark is a significant opportunity cost. Favored Foe does close enough to what hunter's mark does that it diminishes the value of hunter's mark, making the opportunity cost for spending the spell known on it just that much higher, relatively speaking.

[stoutstien]

I do think its funny that most of the ranger optional rules in Tasha basically is adding in rogue features (expertise, mini SA, enhanced movement, better Ba economy).

[follacchioso]

I've been going through this dilemma recently, for a new ranger char I have. I was wondering if I could get away without Hunter's mark, and choose another spell instead.

Conclusion: you can't get away without Hunter's Mark, need both.

Favoured Enemy is useful because it triggers when you hit, so you can use it only when needed. But it uses are very limited - two, three times per long rest, for most of your career - and its duration is also short, just one minute.
The damage is also very small, not only for the dice, but also because you can only add it once per turn.

Hunter's Mark lasts one hour, you can switch targets, and applies to each hit. I save it for the big fight of the day, and use favoured foe as a backup.

[Segev]

If I wanted to tie a spell-ish ability in with Favored Enemy and Favored Terrain, I'd do it as follows:

Ranger's Focus
1st level Ranger feature; requires Favored Enemy
Choose one of the following spells: ensnaring strike, hail of thorns, hunter's mark, searing smite, or zephyr strike. You learn this spell as a Ranger spell that does not count against the number of Ranger spells you know. You may cast this spell once without spending a spell slot, and recover this ability after a short rest. You may also cast it using Ranger spell slots as normal. If you choose hunter's mark, you do not need to concentrate on it when it is targeting a Favored Enemy. If you chose any other spell, you need not concentrate on it, but if you do not, you cannot unleash the spell's harmful effects on a creature that is not your Favored Enemy. When you hit a Favored Enemy with a weapon attack, you may ignore the chosen spell's normal casting time to cast it to unleash its effects on the stricken enemy.

Terrain Bond
1st level Ranger feature; requires Favored Terrain
Choose one of the following spells: animal friendship, beast bond, or speak with animals. You learn this spell as a Ranger spell that does not count against the number of Ranger spells you know. While in your Favored Terrain, you may cast this spell without expending a spell slot. If your DM deems a valid target for this spell to be sufficiently thematically linked to your Favored Terrain, you may cast this spell targeting that creature without expending a spell slot even when not in your Favored Terrain.

It is recommended you not permit both Terrain Bond and Terrain-Empowered Magic

Terrain-Empowered Magic
1st level Ranger feature; requires Favored Terrain and Ranger's Focus
You gain a bonus spell slot one level higher than the highest-level Ranger spell you know. This spell slot replenishes after a short or long rest in your Favored Terrain.

[Kane0]

I can't help but think this would all be a lot easier for the Ranger if Hunter's Mark wasn't the gold standard everything was measured against.

[ProsecutorGodot]

I can't help but think this would all be a lot easier for the Ranger if Hunter's Mark wasn't the gold standard everything was measured against.

When it's the best tool you're given you can't help but compare it. Warlocks tend to have the same issue fire similar reasons, though they've steadily gotten better tools to fill hex's spot where Rangers have gotten tools that work with hunters mark, or in favored foes case, attempt to compete directly.

[MaxWilson]

I can't help but think this would all be a lot easier for the Ranger if Hunter's Mark wasn't the gold standard everything was measured against.

At least we're not comparing against Spike Growth, Pass Without Trace, and Conjure Animals. :) Hunter's Mark at least is only a few d6s of damage, not a whole pile of d4s.

[Witty Username]

If I had to guess, it seems like they're adding things thinking it's what we want without actually thinking about the consequences of those decisions in the scope of their game.

For instance, they presumed that players expected Rangers to be good in the wilderness and exploring, so they gave Rangers a bunch of wilderness-related buffs and didn't account for the fact that it basically made exploration nonexistent by doing so.

So when folks complained about the Ranger being bad, they assumed we meant "Weak". So they added a ton more features that added more damage and not much else (look at almost every single Ranger subclass that came out after the PHB) and didn't think about how they actually played differently than any other Fighter (which is why we still have Ranger / Fighter redundancies despite having optional class features and like 10 subclasses each).

And when they added FF, they just thought it'd be exactly what they thought everyone wanted: A way for the Ranger to be stronger. And they still messed it up by not paying enough attention to their game (by basically making it a more-complicated Hunter's Mark that doesn't actually solve any problems).

The playtest version of the Fighter was more like the Battlemaster, but the playtesters thought it was "too complicated (which was still simpler than our current Paladin). So they dumbed it down and jacked the numbers up. Folks were upset that the Warlock didn't have a presence....so WOTC dumbed it down and jacked the numbers up (which is why we now have the Hexblade). Their solution to everything seems to be "Make it dumber with bigger numbers", as if that's everything that we want. But the folks who care about the Ranger have learned that they don't really care that much about super damage numbers, they care about the uniqueness and the versatility that comes with playing one. The stuff you can't get from playing a jacked up Fighter that spams PAM or Sharpshooter.

Wonder how long it'll be before they figure that one out and we finally get Ranger options that focus on utility for once. I'm gonna guess another 2 years. Maybe 3, considering they still haven't figured out how to get Rangers their dual-wielding yet.

[EDIT]: I guess it could also be a business strategy, as well. Things like utility and interactive effects are harder to balance, while damage numbers are universal. So maybe they add a bunch of generic damage via something related to the "color of the week" for that subclass, slap on a few related ribbon features, and it's a new subclass that any player can use and still get value out of it. The devs don't have to worry about people feeling it's imbalanced, and the only consequence is that the game doesn't get anything that's actually new. Out of all of the Tasha's Barbarian and Ranger options, exactly none of them make me think about anything more than "Deal More Damage" or "Take More Hits". They mostly just get better at doing one or the other, while having some flavorful powers that could be summed up as a proficiency (like how the Horizon Walker has very little to do with actual portals). By having content take up as little design space as possible, you take no risks while leaving room open for expansion later.

Frankly, though, I'll preorder the first book that has a Ranger subclass that both doesn't suck AND doesn't add 1dX damage to an attack for its level 3 feature. A man can dream.

Swarmkeeper? Its level 3 feature is forced movement.

[quindraco]

IMO the Ranger wouldn't suffer from going back to just being a Fighter subclass, as it essentially is in 2nd edition. EK with druid spell access and different features (e.g. animal companion summoning at levels 3 (CR 1/8), 10 (CR 1/2), and 15 (CR 1) instead of weapon summoning, spell buffs, and teleportation) would feel like a Ranger to me.

It doesn't need to be its own class.

I think there's enough room in the design space for it to be its own class, if WOTC would just stop half-assing it. The problem isn't endemic to only Rangers - lord knows, Sorcerers have never had their own real class identity in 5E. But Paladins are well-designed enough to prove that a half-caster can be done competently if you put the work in to make it different. Paladins genuinely don't feel like a Fighter or a Cleric subclass.

[quindraco]

Swarmkeeper? Its level 3 feature is forced movement.

Swarmkeeper offers the +1dX they just said they didn't want on offer, although the +1dX is relatively bad. It never ceases to amaze me that people don't understand that the best Swarmkeeper ability is forced movement on self.

[Witty Username]

I've been going through this dilemma recently, for a new ranger char I have. I was wondering if I could get away without Hunter's mark, and choose another spell instead.

Conclusion: you can't get away without Hunter's Mark, need both.

Favoured Enemy is useful because it triggers when you hit, so you can use it only when needed. But it uses are very limited - two, three times per long rest, for most of your career - and its duration is also short, just one minute.
The damage is also very small, not only for the dice, but also because you can only add it once per turn.

Hunter's Mark lasts one hour, you can switch targets, and applies to each hit. I save it for the big fight of the day, and use favoured foe as a backup.

You definitely can get away without hunter's mark.
Option 1: You just need something more profitable to do with your bonus action.
Beastmaster qualifies right of the bat (literally, if your beast of the sky is a bat), but the more popular option would probably be XBE.
Option 2: spells that are better than damage. Entangle comes immediately to mind. Even spells like good berry can be more useful at early level by keeping you or your party healthy for longer adventures.

Also, while I don't understand why Favored Foe is once per turn, in reality it doesn't matter very much because it only matters if you hit multiple times per turn which is often troublesome against foes that matter (foes you need to spend resources to defeat).

[Segev]

You definitely can get away without hunter's mark.
Option 1: You just need something more profitable to do with your bonus action.
Beastmaster qualifies right of the bat (literally, if your beast of the sky is a bat), but the more popular option would probably be XBE.

A monk/ranger is in an interesting quandary here. The bonus action to cast it is costly, but on subsequent rounds, being able to use hunter's mark's extra damage on both Flurry attacks is pretty nice.

[Hytheter]

Personally I've found it useful to have both in my kit for different circumstances, but it definitely depends on your build. If you're going the XBE route then Hunter's Mark takes a few turns against a single target to break even, but if you save a feat and use a longbow instead it's a lot more worthwhile.


I mean, the damage die for Favored Foe literally increases at 6th level to 1d6, evening out the damage (and 1d8 at 14th level, but that's out of the scope of the current question).


Favoured Foe is only once per turn. It deals the same damage but Hunter's Mark can trigger twice or more, so it hardly balances out.


A monk/ranger is in an interesting quandary here. The bonus action to cast it is costly, but on subsequent rounds, being able to use hunter's mark's extra damage on both Flurry attacks is pretty nice.

I think an oft neglected factor in conversations like these is distance. If you're on the front lines already it's a dilemma, but if you can't reach the enemy this turn anyway Hunter's Mark is pure upside. Cast it, take a few shots at range, then run in and lay the smack down on em.

[Segev]

I think an oft neglected factor in conversations like these is distance. If you're on the front lines already it's a dilemma, but if you can't reach the enemy this turn anyway Hunter's Mark is pure upside. Cast it, take a few shots at range, then run in and lay the smack down on em.

I suppose that there is a range at which this makes sense. Ideally, you want to close to 30 ft. in the same round, but if you can get there with a normal move and attack at range, and also cast hunter's mark, it's probably better than spending ki to bonus action dash to close all the way. You're giving up little in this round's attacks that way, and making up for it a lot on future rounds.

[Hytheter]

Yeah, exactly. Unless you're going for the stuns a longbow is no worse than what you would achieve in Melee without your BA, so you might as well set yourself up for next turn rather than blowing ki to close the gap. Probably safer that way, too.

[Kane0]

If youre talking range, HM has range 90' and FF is unlimited

[Hytheter]

If youre talking range, HM has range 90' and FF is unlimited

Yeah, which is quite nice if you're sharpshooting a longbow at 600ft or even just at its normal 120ft range. With sharpshooter even the hand crossbow's range exceed's that of the spell.

On the other hand, if you have Crossbow Expert but don't yet have Sharpshooter then you may find yourself in situations similar to the aforementioned monk due to the hand crossbow's piddly 30ft range - at certain distances you'll be better off marking and plugging with a heavy crossbow until you get closer. And obviously, if you yet lack XBE then you probably have enough BA's to spare for a mark. Getting both feats is quite an investment - you're looking level 4 at the earliest if you're human, 8 otherwise, and that's assuming you don't prioritise DEX. One way or another you're facing at least a few but quite possibly many levels worth of play without that combo online.

Which comes back to my main point: the question isn't "which one is better" but "which one is better right now."

Side note: You can also somewhat nova with Favoured Foe. While it only triggers once per turn, it has no such limit for activation so if you hit multiple times in one turn you can spend a use every time. Only situationally useful, but worth keeping in mind.

[Man_Over_Game]

I think an oft neglected factor in conversations like these is distance. If you're on the front lines already it's a dilemma, but if you can't reach the enemy this turn anyway Hunter's Mark is pure upside. Cast it, take a few shots at range, then run in and lay the smack down on em.

It works both ways. By adding in Monk, you have to take more risks with your Concentration. Monks are too MAD to have both a high Constitution and a high AC, so they're a lot more likely to lose it than the average Ranger that's shooting from 40 feet away.

[Segev]

It works both ways. By adding in Monk, you have to take more risks with your Concentration. Monks are too MAD to have both a high Constitution and a high AC, so they're a lot more likely to lose it than the average Ranger that's shooting from 40 feet away.

Potentially, yes, but they're also quite mobile. An open hand monk, for instance, using flurry of blows, can smack around his target, knock him prone, and then hurl the target 15 feet away and back off another 5-10, putting him out of reach of most enemies' ability to retaliate (considering that it costs half your movement to rise from prone, or double movement to crawl). If they move in, he's perfectly kiting them. If they don't, he can go after another enemy or close the 35 feet to get this one next round, hurling him back again and possibly knocking him prone again if needs be.

It's not a perfect strategy, obviously, but nothing is.

[Man_Over_Game]

Potentially, yes, but they're also quite mobile. An open hand monk, for instance, using flurry of blows, can smack around his target, knock him prone, and then hurl the target 15 feet away and back off another 5-10, putting him out of reach of most enemies' ability to retaliate (considering that it costs half your movement to rise from prone, or double movement to crawl). If they move in, he's perfectly kiting them. If they don't, he can go after another enemy or close the 35 feet to get this one next round, hurling him back again and possibly knocking him prone again if needs be.

It's not a perfect strategy, obviously, but nothing is.

I feel like that is a fairly imperfect strategy to begin with. You're talking about hitting with both attacks, then the target misses on two different saves.

Drunken Master would do well, though, as long as your team has a melee line without you.

[Thunderous Mojo]

But it's not Favored Enemy that makes Favored Foe "not good enough." It's that Favored Foe, despite being better than Favored Enemy on almost an objectively inarguable level, is still not good enough for a level 1 Ranger feature.

I agree with this, completely.....which is why Favored Foe, (and frankly all the TCoE Alternative features), should be added features, not just replacements.

Exploration advantages thru Natural Explorer + small Damage boost + 1 Expertise + 3 Extra Languages is closer to the mark of what a 1st level Ranger should reach.

[Man_Over_Game]

I agree with this, completely.....which is why Favored Foe, (and frankly all the TCoE Alternative features), should be added features, not just replacements.

Exploration advantages thru Natural Explorer + small Damage boost + 1 Expertise + 3 Extra Languages is closer to the mark of what a 1st level Ranger should reach.

Ironically, the revised ranger did this perfectly, it just gave too much at level 1. For reference, here's the full list:

• You ignore difficult terrain.
• You have advantage on initiative rolls.
• On your first turn during combat, you have advantage on attack rolls against creatures that have not yet acted.

You gain the following benefits when traveling for an hour or more:
• Difficult terrain doesn’t slow your group’s travel.
• Your group can’t become lost except by magical means.
• Even when you are engaged in another activity while traveling (such as foraging, navigating, or tracking), you remain alert to danger.
• If you are traveling alone, you can move stealthily at a normal pace.
• When you forage, you find twice as much food as you normally would.
• While tracking other creatures, you also learn their exact number, their sizes, and how long ago they passed through the area

They could have just had you pick three from the list and then pick an additional 1 every 3 levels into Ranger, and I think that would've been perfect.

[paladinn]

Would it be possible to mash-up Favored Enemy, Favored Foe and maybe some of Hunter's Mark, limited so as to not be OP?

All 3 are definitely in the ranger wheelhouse, but none of them really strikes me as being enough to be the ranger's "thing". Paladins smite; this should be the ranger equivalent. IMHO.

[Segev]

Would it be possible to mash-up Favored Enemy, Favored Foe and maybe some of Hunter's Mark, limited so as to not be OP?

All 3 are definitely in the ranger wheelhouse, but none of them really strikes me as being enough to be the ranger's "thing". Paladins smite; this should be the ranger equivalent. IMHO.

My suggestion would be something like this (from the last page):


If I wanted to tie a spell-ish ability in with Favored Enemy and Favored Terrain, I'd do it as follows:

Ranger's Focus
1st level Ranger feature; requires Favored Enemy
Choose one of the following spells: ensnaring strike, hail of thorns, hunter's mark, searing smite, or zephyr strike. You learn this spell as a Ranger spell that does not count against the number of Ranger spells you know. You may cast this spell once without spending a spell slot, and recover this ability after a short rest. You may also cast it using Ranger spell slots as normal. If you choose hunter's mark, you do not need to concentrate on it when it is targeting a Favored Enemy. If you chose any other spell, you need not concentrate on it, but if you do not, you cannot unleash the spell's harmful effects on a creature that is not your Favored Enemy. When you hit a Favored Enemy with a weapon attack, you may ignore the chosen spell's normal casting time to cast it to unleash its effects on the stricken enemy.

Terrain Bond
1st level Ranger feature; requires Favored Terrain
Choose one of the following spells: animal friendship, beast bond, or speak with animals. You learn this spell as a Ranger spell that does not count against the number of Ranger spells you know. While in your Favored Terrain, you may cast this spell without expending a spell slot. If your DM deems a valid target for this spell to be sufficiently thematically linked to your Favored Terrain, you may cast this spell targeting that creature without expending a spell slot even when not in your Favored Terrain.

It is recommended you not permit both Terrain Bond and Terrain-Empowered Magic

Terrain-Empowered Magic
1st level Ranger feature; requires Favored Terrain and Ranger's Focus
You gain a bonus spell slot one level higher than the highest-level Ranger spell you know. This spell slot replenishes after a short or long rest in your Favored Terrain.

[paladinn]

My suggestion would be something like this (from the last page):

Seems a bit convoluted for what we're considering. Outside of some of the ribbon aspects of favored enemy, we're just looking at the ability/effectiveness of hitting your chosen "favored" enemy.

In Pathfinder, there was a "spell" (I think) called "Instant Enemy" that would apply your combat bonus that would normally be reserved for your "favored" enemy to whatever enemy you're currently fighting. Could/should that be adapted for 5e?

[Witty Username]

A monk/ranger is in an interesting quandary here. The bonus action to cast it is costly, but on subsequent rounds, being able to use hunter's mark's extra damage on both Flurry attacks is pretty nice.

Won't that only go as far as your ki though? I am not sure on the monk-ranger ratio that you are going with so I can't give hard numbers but flurry will eat through your ki in a combat or two.
Also, it comes at the cost of high level rangers spells like plant growth and conjure woodland beings. Which can end combat in your favor with single casts.

[Segev]

Won't that only go as far as your ki though? I am not sure on the monk-ranger ratio that you are going with so I can't give hard numbers but flurry will eat through your ki in a combat or two.
Also, it comes at the cost of high level rangers spells like plant growth and conjure woodland beings. Which can end combat in your favor with single casts.

Monks also have martial arts, which is one fewer attacks, but only costs "making an attack during an attack action with an unarmed strike or a monk weapon." So it doesn't necessarily devour your ki, but that is still a valid concern. As to the high level ranger spells, sure, if that's what you're playing a ranger for.

[Kane0]

Seems a bit convoluted for what we're considering. Outside of some of the ribbon aspects of favored enemy, we're just looking at the ability/effectiveness of hitting your chosen "favored" enemy.

In Pathfinder, there was a "spell" (I think) called "Instant Enemy" that would apply your combat bonus that would normally be reserved for your "favored" enemy to whatever enemy you're currently fighting. Could/should that be adapted for 5e?

That's not a bad idea. Include the once per turn damage of Favored Foe as a part of Favored Enemy, and change Hunter's Mark so it makes the target a Favored Enemy instead of granting bonus damage.

[Segev]

That's not a bad idea. Include the once per turn damage of Favored Foe as a part of Favored Enemy, and change Hunter's Mark so it makes the target a Favored Enemy instead of granting bonus damage.

That actually weakens Hunter's Mere considerably, and Favored Enemy remains fairly lackluster. It also makes it lose its flavor when you just magically declare new creatures to be "favored enemies."

Sorry, I don't care for it.

[Kane0]

How about if I write it out like this:

Favored Enemy
Beginning at 1st level, you have significant experience studying, tracking, hunting, and even talking to a certain type of enemy.

Choose a type of favored enemy: aberrations, beasts, celestials, constructs, dragons, elementals, fey, fiends, giants, monstrosities, oozes, plants, or undead. Alternatively, you can select two three races of humanoid (such as gnolls and orcs) as favored enemies.

- You learn one language of your choice that is spoken by your favored enemies, if they speak one.
- You have advantage on Wisdom checks to find and track your favored enemies, as well as on Intelligence checks to recall information about them.
- Once on each of your turns when you hit a Favored Enemy with an attack and deal damage to it you can increase the damage by 1d4.

You choose one additional favored enemy, as well as an associated language, at 6th and 14th level. At those same levels this feature's extra damage increases to 1d6 at 6th level and 1d8 at 14th level.


Hunter's Mark
Beginning at 2nd level, you can expend one Ranger spell slot as a Bonus Action to choose one creature that (you have met? or that) you can see within 90 feet, concentrating as if you had cast a spell. For a number of hours equal to twice the level of the spell slot expended you can treat that creature as a Favored Enemy.
If the target drops to 0 hit points before this effect ends you can use a bonus action on a subsequent turn of yours to mark a new creature.

At 10th level using this feature no longer uses your concentration.

[Segev]

How about if I write it out like this:

Favored Enemy
Beginning at 1st level, you have significant experience studying, tracking, hunting, and even talking to a certain type of enemy.

Choose a type of favored enemy: aberrations, beasts, celestials, constructs, dragons, elementals, fey, fiends, giants, monstrosities, oozes, plants, or undead. Alternatively, you can select two three races of humanoid (such as gnolls and orcs) as favored enemies.

- You learn one language of your choice that is spoken by your favored enemies, if they speak one.
- You have advantage on Wisdom checks to find and track your favored enemies, as well as on Intelligence checks to recall information about them.
- Once on each of your turns when you hit a Favored Enemy with an attack and deal damage to it you can increase the damage by 1d4.

You choose one additional favored enemy, as well as an associated language, at 6th and 14th level. At those same levels this feature's extra damage increases to 1d6 at 6th level and 1d8 at 14th level.


Hunter's Mark
Beginning at 2nd level, you can expend one Ranger spell slot as a Bonus Action to choose one creature that (you have met? or that) you can see within 90 feet, concentrating as if you had cast a spell. For a number of hours equal to twice the level of the spell slot expended you can treat that creature as a Favored Enemy.
If the target drops to 0 hit points before this effect ends you can use a bonus action on a subsequent turn of yours to mark a new creature.

At 10th level using this feature no longer uses your concentration.

Still makes Favored Enemy too situational to be useful, unless and until you remove the actual "favored" part of it by spending a spell slot. This is the old problem with 3e and earlier where rangers were too dependent on their ability to predict how the campaign would go (or, if they went purely on RP, risked being significantly weaker than they should be), coupled with the problem of losing all flavor.

Especially given that ranger spell slots are precious.

Moreover, because the favored enemy damage bonus still takes concentration, you're making other options for spell use compete with it. While that's the purpose of the concentration mechanic in 5e, I don't think it's good enough to really be worth it, and under most circumstances, rangers will treat Favored Enemy and this version of Hunter's Mark as fall-backs, not as core components of the classes. Something to do when they have nothing else. That CAN be okay, but should something allegedly core to the class be a last resort rather than a core component of their strategy?

(Technically, as worded, your Hunter's Mark prevents them from using the Favored Enemy bonus damage on the target without the target ceasing to be a Favored Enemy, as well, but I know what you meant it to be and I'm not going to quibble over wording, here. Just pointing it out for completeness's sake.)

I think a better approach would be for Favored Enemy to tie in with more Ranger features that are broadly applicable, but BETTER used against Favored Enemies. As an example: hunter's mark might not require Concentration while the target is a Favored Enemy. Swift quiver might grant a third attack on the bonus action that can only be used against a Favored Enemy. Flame arrows might not count any arrows fired at a Favored Enemy against the maximum number it can fire. Ensnaring strike, branding smite, and similar spells might not be expended when used on a Favored Enemy. The Blindfighting Fighting Style for Rangers might have a range of 20 ft. when dealing with Favored Enemies. Or even 60 feet, like darkvision. The Gloomstalker's extra attack on the first round of combat might continue to be available round after round, but only against a Favored Enemy.

Some of this is probably too powerful, but I'm just spitballing ideas. None of this would be written into Favored Enemy itself, other than perhaps a note along the lines of, "...and you gain certain other benefits from various Ranger abilities against your Favored Enemies," just to let players know to look for that if they're new to the class/game. The rest would be written into the features, themselves. Yes, various Ranger spells would have notes that refer specifically to "Favored Enemies" and would not be useful to non-Rangers who took them.

You could even do similarly with Favored Terrains, giving more perks for certain abilities when in the Favored Terrain. Though I think Favored Terrain would benefit more from explicitly having some cool toy or trick each Terrain let the Ranger do that's more broadly applicable, since terrain is going to be slower to change from session to session than enemy types.

[Dark.Revenant]

Just poking in here once more because it popped into my head. Consider the following:

Paladins technically have a Favored Enemy mechanic. It's against Fiends and Undead. We don't count this against the Paladin's design, and in fact Paladins are great even in campaigns where you're not fighting Fiends and Undead.

Rangers ought to be similar.

[paladinn]

Just poking in here once more because it popped into my head. Consider the following:

Paladins technically have a Favored Enemy mechanic. It's against Fiends and Undead. We don't count this against the Paladin's design, and in fact Paladins are great even in campaigns where you're not fighting Fiends and Undead.

Rangers ought to be similar.

This. But honestly I don't care for how smites are tied into spell slots. If I had my druthers, I would have both paladins and rangers be spell-less; at the least, have their main offensive ability (smites or favored foe/enemy/whatever) Not be dependent on available spell slots. At least with paladins, it's understandable: smites draw on divine power. The ranger's ability is more related to skill, knowledge, training, etc.

[Reach Weapon]

It works both ways. By adding in Monk, you have to take more risks with your Concentration. Monks are too MAD to have both a high Constitution and a high AC, so they're a lot more likely to lose it than the average Ranger that's shooting from 40 feet away.

This drops back into character planning, as starting with a monk level makes CON one of your saves.


One of the flaws of Favored Enemy in past editions is that Rangers risked being too good if they chose "right" for a campaign, too weak if they chose "wrong," and otherwise were spiky vs. some things but not others. It made it hard to balance the feature: should the Ranger be "on par" with everyone else when facing his favored enemy, as others might have to expend some resources to be at their best in the same fights? Or should he be on par normally, with favored enemies being something he's notably stronger against? This is so campaign-dependent it hurts.

Favored Foe, as written in TCE, provides the breadth of applicability required, but loses all flavor of the Ranger actually being an expert at facing certain critters.

I suggested on another Ranger thread that the solution is probably make it reconfigurable. As a Ranger you've got a broad range of knowledge and training, and as a ritual during a rest (perhaps a few rests) you reattune yourself to a set of foes (or terrain, although I do like Deft Explorer). A skilled writer could probably maintain a lot of the flavor while giving the player a much better chance of being and staying correct.

[Kane0]

Modular Ranger might well be the best method to keep everyone happy, but also the most complicated design-wise.

[paladinn]

Sort-of related.. Favored Terrain could give a bonus against some elemental attacks. If your F.T is desert, you get heat resistance; tundra gets you cold resistance; swamp gets acid resistance; etc.

I know I've read that somewhere before..lol

[Kuulvheysoon]

Sort-of related.. Favored Terrain could give a bonus against some elemental attacks. If your F.T is desert, you get heat resistance; tundra gets you cold resistance; swamp gets acid resistance; etc.

I know I've read that somewhere before..lol

Sounds like Storm Herald Barb to me.

[MaxWilson]

This drops back into character planning, as starting with a monk level makes CON one of your saves.

I believe monks, like rangers, are proficient in Str and Dex saves, not Con. (Until Monk 14 Diamond Body comes online, anyway.)

[Reach Weapon]

I believe monks, like rangers, are proficient in Str and Dex saves, not Con. (Until Monk 14 Diamond Body comes online, anyway.)

The embarrassing part is not that I misremembered, it's that I somehow screwed up verifying it before I posted.

[mr_stibbons]

Sounds like Storm Herald Barb to me.

This is the seed of a good idea. I've quite enjoyed how the various barbarian subclasses theme their supernatural powers, and I think brining some of that flavour into the ranger would improve the class. Rangers in 5e have always suffered from being the spell caster with the least thematic weight to your spell casting. This should be something you focus a subclass around, and to be important to your characters world building.

Making a ranger get their spells from bonds with animal, elemental, fey or other kinds of spirits, and make subclasses around them.

[Dork_Forge]

Generally? Hunter's Mark. It's more damage and scales with you in a more practical manner.

It does require spell slots, but it also is transferrable and lasts an hour, with a thematic rider. The thing that utterly killed Favored Foe as competition is the concentration. It's just a silly piece of design seeing as most of the fun spells a Ranger might want to use (like Hail of Thorns, Ensaring Strike etc.) require concentration.

The only time it's 'better' than Hunter's Mark is at first level, for obvious reasons, and it can be situationally better dependent on your subclass and playstyle. If you have a way of getting a bonus action attack out (or another feature, like the Monster Hunter's HM analogue) then in most three round combats it's going to be close if not a smidge better than using Hunter's Mark.

This doesn't speak to the power of FF in my opinion, it just speaks to the opportunity cost of spening a bonus action on Hunter's Mark when you have othe BA damage sources.

The range is better, and that could be a niche, but it is most certainly a niche, I'm sure there's some tables where it's a regularity, or maybe even SOP, but ime on both sides of the screen 90ft has never been insufficient for HM, especially when the characters movement is factored.

I have a Ranger 5/Rogue 3 in one of my games, she started out using the UA version that allowed concentrationless Hunter's Mark, when Tasha's came out and I was asked about it I just said to keep using it as before, because FF is a step down in an unacceptable way whilst I'm DMing.

It would have been more interesting imo if they combined some elements of tracking, evaluation, and overcoming resistance in FF instead of a straight damage ability.

[nathanv]

They're not in competition. If you have slots you want to blow on HM, blow them. When you're out of slots, maybe because you lost conc, use FF. You should be having more fights than you have slots between 2 and 5.

That said, fog cloud + blind fighting (TCOG assumed because FF) is better than either at 2; spike growth or just maintaining PWT conc for the next fight is better than either at 5.

[Segev]

They're not in competition. If you have slots you want to blow on HM, blow them. When you're out of slots, maybe because you lost conc, use FF. You should be having more fights than you have slots between 2 and 5.

They are absolutely in competition. You cannot use both at the same time. They do similar enough things that having one makes the opportunity costs associated with purchasing the other more expensive. And it is rare that you're going to be in enough fights that having both is going to be useful for sustainability purposes. If you have Favored Foe, it will usually be more useful to have other spells you can actually use at the same time it's up.

[nathanv]

They are absolutely in competition. You cannot use both at the same time. They do similar enough things that having one makes the opportunity costs associated with purchasing the other more expensive. And it is rare that you're going to be in enough fights that having both is going to be useful for sustainability purposes. If you have Favored Foe, it will usually be more useful to have other spells you can actually use at the same time it's up.

At level 2, you have 2 spell slots. If you have more than 2 fights inside a long rest, you can use both. If you have fewer than 2 fights inside a long rest but lose concentration, you can use both. If you have fewer than 2 fights but need to use absorb elements or goodberry, you can use both. 2 fights is not a lot of fights. 3 fights is not a lot of fights, and that's as many slots as you'll get before getting some very nice 2nd level conc spells.

You can use FF against 2 opponents per long rest at level 2. Neither it nor HM are designed to be used for every fight. FF uses don't increase quickly.

Of course, the number of fights per LR is very DM/campaign dependent.

Even at level 2, HM or FF are not the best uses of your concentration in my opinion. FF is a backup for when you want to conserve resources. You're not drowning in slots. But if HM is what you want, FF is just as much a backup for it as any other slotted spell.

For a ranger with higher level slots, I would probably not be spending my concentration on either effect. Rangers have good spells. Especially, they have good conc spells. I would not recommend avoiding conc spells so that you can use FF more freely.

You can respec freely out of Hunter's Mark (on level), so picking Hunter's Mark is a *temporary* investment that is not hard to change. If this is something you want to use your concentration on for right now, and you're concerned that you won't have enough spells known later, it isn't really a big deal. You'll be fine.

I would absolutely pick FF over FE, which is what I consider the choice to be. Can't respec that one of course.

[Segev]

If you pick FF, there is little reason to pick HM. Especially if you value it as little compared to other Ranger spells as you seem to. After all, you can use FF with other Rare spells. Heck, you can use a Concentration spell that ends on an attack, like Ensnaring Strike, and activate Favored Foe on the same hit that ends the spell.

The extra d4 is meh but still better than nothing at level 1-2.

Favored Foe is just not good enough, despite this. I don't think it is good enough nor flavorful enough even if you get FE on top of it!

[paladinn]

This is starting to remind me why I generally prefer Classic/OSR-type games

[Quietus]

From experience, I can tell you that if you have a good use for your bonus action, Favored Foe feels great. I'm playing a Beastmaster in a nautical campaign right now, and my character does happen to have Hunter's Mark - but I have used it maybe three times.

1 - I wanted to be able to ensure I could track someone
2 - My pet died, freeing up my bonus action, during a tough fight
3 - My pet was too far away to engage in melee on the first round, and we had a dangerous foe on the board

This character is now level 6, and while I don't feel I wasted that spell known, I have been more than happy with the damage output I have with favored foe and a heavy crossbow plus pet. I could use that spell known for something else, and may change it out at some point, but overall what people are referring to in this thread - Hunter's Mark not being as good as having a bonus action attack - absolutely plays out at my table.

[Segev]

From experience, I can tell you that if you have a good use for your bonus action, Favored Foe feels great. I'm playing a Beastmaster in a nautical campaign right now, and my character does happen to have Hunter's Mark - but I have used it maybe three times.

1 - I wanted to be able to ensure I could track someone
2 - My pet died, freeing up my bonus action, during a tough fight
3 - My pet was too far away to engage in melee on the first round, and we had a dangerous foe on the board

This character is now level 6, and while I don't feel I wasted that spell known, I have been more than happy with the damage output I have with favored foe and a heavy crossbow plus pet. I could use that spell known for something else, and may change it out at some point, but overall what people are referring to in this thread - Hunter's Mark not being as good as having a bonus action attack - absolutely plays out at my table.

two things about your experience as described: if you had more than one round, you would have bonus action attacks that benefit from your Hunter's Mark that cannot from FF, and in your particular case HM will be less useful because you are not, personally, making multiple attacks per round.

Any non-beastmaster, and many TWF rangers, will find the trade-off of one round's off hand attack for both attack action attack's and subsequent rounds' off hand attacks getting +1d6 far superior to one +1d6 or even d8 per round.

[Theodoxus]

Still makes Favored Enemy too situational to be useful, unless and until you remove the actual "favored" part of it by spending a spell slot. This is the old problem with 3e and earlier where rangers were too dependent on their ability to predict how the campaign would go (or, if they went purely on RP, risked being significantly weaker than they should be), coupled with the problem of losing all flavor.

Especially given that ranger spell slots are precious.

Moreover, because the favored enemy damage bonus still takes concentration, you're making other options for spell use compete with it. While that's the purpose of the concentration mechanic in 5e, I don't think it's good enough to really be worth it, and under most circumstances, rangers will treat Favored Enemy and this version of Hunter's Mark as fall-backs, not as core components of the classes. Something to do when they have nothing else. That CAN be okay, but should something allegedly core to the class be a last resort rather than a core component of their strategy?

(Technically, as worded, your Hunter's Mark prevents them from using the Favored Enemy bonus damage on the target without the target ceasing to be a Favored Enemy, as well, but I know what you meant it to be and I'm not going to quibble over wording, here. Just pointing it out for completeness's sake.)

I think a better approach would be for Favored Enemy to tie in with more Ranger features that are broadly applicable, but BETTER used against Favored Enemies. As an example: hunter's mark might not require Concentration while the target is a Favored Enemy. Swift quiver might grant a third attack on the bonus action that can only be used against a Favored Enemy. Flame arrows might not count any arrows fired at a Favored Enemy against the maximum number it can fire. Ensnaring strike, branding smite, and similar spells might not be expended when used on a Favored Enemy. The Blindfighting Fighting Style for Rangers might have a range of 20 ft. when dealing with Favored Enemies. Or even 60 feet, like darkvision. The Gloomstalker's extra attack on the first round of combat might continue to be available round after round, but only against a Favored Enemy.

Some of this is probably too powerful, but I'm just spitballing ideas. None of this would be written into Favored Enemy itself, other than perhaps a note along the lines of, "...and you gain certain other benefits from various Ranger abilities against your Favored Enemies," just to let players know to look for that if they're new to the class/game. The rest would be written into the features, themselves. Yes, various Ranger spells would have notes that refer specifically to "Favored Enemies" and would not be useful to non-Rangers who took them.

You could even do similarly with Favored Terrains, giving more perks for certain abilities when in the Favored Terrain. Though I think Favored Terrain would benefit more from explicitly having some cool toy or trick each Terrain let the Ranger do that's more broadly applicable, since terrain is going to be slower to change from session to session than enemy types.

I'm really liking what you're putting down here. It puts the baseline Ranger on par with other martial classes while giving a decent boost against favored enemies. It matches up with how Paladin smites gain a boon against fiends and undead - but still rock a non-fiend/undead's world too.

The thing that bugs me about HM and FF both, is the concentration requirement. I grok why you want a mechanic that can knock the ability offline if you take damage ala concentration - but it seems that true concentration just limits the ranger's ability to utilize their toys efficiently. Sadly, you'd need to create a new mechanic a 'faux concentration' I'll call "focus" for it, but there are number of abilities, like FF that require concentration but aren't spells. I think all of them would be better served with this 'focus' mechanic.

For example, FF would be written as:
"When you hit a creature with an attack roll, you can call on your mystical bond with nature to mark the target as your favored enemy for 1 minute or until you lose your focus..."

Focus would then be defined as "Some abilities and spells require you to maintain focus in order to keep them active. If you lose focus, such an ability or spell ends." And then use Concentration's description of losing through damage, incapacitation/death and using another ability or spell that requires focus. But focus and concentration are separate functions and can be used simultaneously.

I don't think many spells would use Focus over Concentration. Right now, basically Hex and Hunter's Mark are the only that spring to mind. Perhaps other combat oriented spells like the various sword summoning ones... I think this specific solution is better than simply letting some classes able to concentrate on two spells - which is a common homebrew - as it lets the DM specify what abilities and spells will be Concentration and which will be Focus, thus curtailing a lot of problematic combinations. Greater Invis and Fly? That's a bit much...

Now, this solution also doesn't address the fact that HM and FF can't be used simultaneously. And personally, I think that's a feature, not a bug. But if that's troublesome - easy peasy - call "concentration" for abilities 'Focus' and for spells 'Concentration' and problem solved.

[Segev]

For a "lose focus" mechanic, you could have it be, "Some abilities require you to maintain your focus. As long as you maintain focus, you can keep up any number of effects that require it. Anything that causes you to lose concentration also breaks your focus."

[Quietus]

two things about your experience as described: if you had more than one round, you would have bonus action attacks that benefit from your Hunter's Mark that cannot from FF, and in your particular case HM will be less useful because you are not, personally, making multiple attacks per round.

Any non-beastmaster, and many TWF rangers, will find the trade-off of one round's off hand attack for both attack action attack's and subsequent rounds' off hand attacks getting +1d6 far superior to one +1d6 or even d8 per round.

How often do you encounter enemies that last that many rounds, though? If your team is focus firing a particular enemy, it's rare to get a second round of attacks on them. Those rare, large, solo fights? That's precisely why I have Hunter's Mark on my list, because it applies over time.

To get that bonus action attack, you are either spending a feat, or a fighting style. Let's say feat, because crossbow expert and polearm master are both really popular. Looking at crossbow expert in particular; that character has spent an ASI to get XBE, while someone who hasn't purchased that feat can have raised their dex instead. Both started with 16 dex. We'll use level 6, because that's when favored foe bumps to a d6. Their opponent has 15 AC, as I believe that's the average for a CR6 monster.

XBE user : First round, hunter's mark, 2x hand crossbow shots (2d6+3 each with HM). With archery style, they have +8 to hit, so they hit 65% of the time. Average damage is 13.
Second round, 3x hand crossbow shots. Average damage is 19.5
Average damage over two rounds : 32.5

Non-XBE user, firing a longbow : First round, 2x longbow shots (1d8+4 each). With archery style, +9 to hit, so they hit 70% of the time. Longbow damage is therefore 5.95. However, they apply Favored Foe; there is a 91% chance of their attack hitting, so they get 91% of the d6 extra damage, or 3.185. Average damage is 15.085
Second round : Same as the first. Average damage over two rounds : 30.17

In this situation, yes, the XBE user comes out ahead, very slightly. However, the XBE user has been using their bonus action, the longbow user has not. They could be multiclassing with Rogue to get advantage on attacks by hiding, or they could be using one of the Ranger subclasses that give you a use for your bonus action (beastmaster, horizon walker come to mind). If they do anything at all with that bonus action, they can easily either pull ahead in damage, or gain tactical advantages the other does not. I also haven't taken into account that the longbow user could use, for example, Elven Accuracy or Piercer to get that 18 dex, which would further enhance their potential advantage. The longbow user also hasn't burned a spell slot or spell known to do any of this.

And on top of all the above, again, if you're in a fight against a bunch of smaller targets, the XBE user is potentially better off not using Hunter's Mark at all.

[Witty Username]

That kinda reminds my of psionic focus from 3.5.
For those that don't know, essentially you could concentrate for a bit to gain psionic focus, from there you gained some benefits while it was active or expend it to do something.
A couple of feats to use as examples:
Speed of thought, +10ft to movement speed while you have psionic focus.
Deep impact: when you make a melee attack, you may expend your psionic focus to ignore your targets AC bonuses from armor for the attack.

I think you could lose it like normal concentration stuff too, but I don't remember. The one psionic character I made didn't get hit very often.

[Dork_Forge]

How often do you encounter enemies that last that many rounds, though? If your team is focus firing a particular enemy, it's rare to get a second round of attacks on them. Those rare, large, solo fights? That's precisely why I have Hunter's Mark on my list, because it applies over time.

To get that bonus action attack, you are either spending a feat, or a fighting style. Let's say feat, because crossbow expert and polearm master are both really popular. Looking at crossbow expert in particular; that character has spent an ASI to get XBE, while someone who hasn't purchased that feat can have raised their dex instead. Both started with 16 dex. We'll use level 6, because that's when favored foe bumps to a d6. Their opponent has 15 AC, as I believe that's the average for a CR6 monster.

XBE user : First round, hunter's mark, 2x hand crossbow shots (2d6+3 each with HM). With archery style, they have +8 to hit, so they hit 65% of the time. Average damage is 13.
Second round, 3x hand crossbow shots. Average damage is 19.5
Average damage over two rounds : 32.5

Non-XBE user, firing a longbow : First round, 2x longbow shots (1d8+4 each). With archery style, +9 to hit, so they hit 70% of the time. Longbow damage is therefore 5.95. However, they apply Favored Foe; there is a 91% chance of their attack hitting, so they get 91% of the d6 extra damage, or 3.185. Average damage is 15.085
Second round : Same as the first. Average damage over two rounds : 30.17

In this situation, yes, the XBE user comes out ahead, very slightly. However, the XBE user has been using their bonus action, the longbow user has not. They could be multiclassing with Rogue to get advantage on attacks by hiding, or they could be using one of the Ranger subclasses that give you a use for your bonus action (beastmaster, horizon walker come to mind). If they do anything at all with that bonus action, they can easily either pull ahead in damage, or gain tactical advantages the other does not. I also haven't taken into account that the longbow user could use, for example, Elven Accuracy or Piercer to get that 18 dex, which would further enhance their potential advantage. The longbow user also hasn't burned a spell slot or spell known to do any of this.

And on top of all the above, again, if you're in a fight against a bunch of smaller targets, the XBE user is potentially better off not using Hunter's Mark at all.

I mean the average number of rounds is typically 3 not 2, which favours HM over FF, but there's some other things to consider that I think are worth plugging into your numbers:

You chose a feat build for the HM, and subbed out the 4th level ASI for it, this really isn't necessary at all and has a meaningful impact on damage. Alternatives:

-Just a TWF Ranger, using d6 weapons bumping Dex at 4th

-A V.Human CBE that bumps Dex at 4th

Your comparison is also a little odd to me, the FF doesn't use a bonus action at all, but one of the strengths of FF is that it doesn't require a bonus action to set up. By not using the bonus action anyway, then that's just a straight downgrade in like for like comparisons for FF.

The place that FF excels is at 1st level and Rangers with busy bonus actions, the CBE build would have been a better example for FF if only one of them was going to get it.

[Ir0ns0ul]

One of my regular DMs loves gritty realism rules and since spell slots are so precious, Favored Foe has been a great option. I’m playing a Goblin Ranger and I do have always-on opportunities to use my bonus action with Nimble Escape, therefore Hunters Mark isn’t a must have for me.

However, whenever we are in a dangerous boss encounter, I usually cast Hunters Mark to leverage in the three attacks alongside Dread Ambusher. +3d6 is a great bonus damage.

[Quietus]

I mean the average number of rounds is typically 3 not 2, which favours HM over FF, but there's some other things to consider that I think are worth plugging into your numbers:

You chose a feat build for the HM, and subbed out the 4th level ASI for it, this really isn't necessary at all and has a meaningful impact on damage. Alternatives:

-Just a TWF Ranger, using d6 weapons bumping Dex at 4th

-A V.Human CBE that bumps Dex at 4th

Your comparison is also a little odd to me, the FF doesn't use a bonus action at all, but one of the strengths of FF is that it doesn't require a bonus action to set up. By not using the bonus action anyway, then that's just a straight downgrade in like for like comparisons for FF.

The place that FF excels is at 1st level and Rangers with busy bonus actions, the CBE build would have been a better example for FF if only one of them was going to get it.

I disagree that most things take three turns to take down. We may be playing very different games, but in a party with focus fire options I find that again, three turns only matters when you're looking a big solo target. But for apples to apples comparison, let's look at two variant humans with XBE at level 1, then. 16 dex, vs AC 13

With HM :
Round 1, +5 to hit, 2d6+3 (10) damage - 6.5 average
Round 2, +5 to hit, 4d6+6 (20) damage - 13 average
Total : 19.5

With FF :
All rounds, +5 to hit, 2d6+6 (13) damage - 8.45, plus the FF, 87.75% of 1d4 (2.5) = 2.19~, for 10.64 average damage per round

Exactly identical builds, purely comparing the two options. It takes a third round of firing for HM to come out on top.

Bottom line is - Hunter's Mark is good. But it isn't the be-all, end-all of playing a Ranger. If you have a good use for your bonus action, you're better off using that rather than using HM in all but the most exceptional fights.

[Dork_Forge]

I disagree that most things take three turns to take down. We may be playing very different games, but in a party with focus fire options I find that again, three turns only matters when you're looking a big solo target. But for apples to apples comparison, let's look at two variant humans with XBE at level 1, then. 16 dex, vs AC 13

With HM :
Round 1, +5 to hit, 2d6+3 (10) damage - 6.5 average
Round 2, +5 to hit, 4d6+6 (20) damage - 13 average
Total : 19.5

With FF :
All rounds, +5 to hit, 2d6+6 (13) damage - 8.45, plus the FF, 87.75% of 1d4 (2.5) = 2.19~, for 10.64 average damage per round

Exactly identical builds, purely comparing the two options. It takes a third round of firing for HM to come out on top.

Bottom line is - Hunter's Mark is good. But it isn't the be-all, end-all of playing a Ranger. If you have a good use for your bonus action, you're better off using that rather than using HM in all but the most exceptional fights.

I'm... really not following your logic, unless the party is AOE happy and the lay out permits said aoe-ing, multiple enemies make more sense for 3 round averages, since a big solo monster will naturally take focus fire from the entire party and potentially go down in two or less depending on the nova capability. Even with your standard Goblins, you'd have to basically not miss any hits/roll high damage on the hits you do make to get a group of goblins down in two turns.


Why did the comparison suddenly jump down to first level when you did apples to apples? Not only does pre-Extra Attack levels favour FF over HM, you don't even get HM until 2nd level (along with the FS). 1st level is literally the only level there's no competition, because there's only one competitor.

At 5th level + I'm going to assume those numbers shift the other way pretty quickly, even if the final outcome is only a few points higher. That's 3/4s of the total game and roughly half of the frequently played levels, but realistically over half of the played time.

That's not even accounting for the incredibly heavy restrictions on FF: You can't move it, so if you have multiple enemies it's impact is significantly reduced. You also only have a few uses of it and it will never leave the encounter, so you will more often then not just not be using it unless you DM favours fewer but deadlier encounters.

Hunter's Mark may compete with other spells, but it lasts up to an hour and spells slots are a lot more plentiful than FF uses.

[Quietus]

I'm... really not following your logic, unless the party is AOE happy and the lay out permits said aoe-ing, multiple enemies make more sense for 3 round averages, since a big solo monster will naturally take focus fire from the entire party and potentially go down in two or less depending on the nova capability. Even with your standard Goblins, you'd have to basically not miss any hits/roll high damage on the hits you do make to get a group of goblins down in two turns.


Why did the comparison suddenly jump down to first level when you did apples to apples? Not only does pre-Extra Attack levels favour FF over HM, you don't even get HM until 2nd level (along with the FS). 1st level is literally the only level there's no competition, because there's only one competitor.

At 5th level + I'm going to assume those numbers shift the other way pretty quickly, even if the final outcome is only a few points higher. That's 3/4s of the total game and roughly half of the frequently played levels, but realistically over half of the played time.

That's not even accounting for the incredibly heavy restrictions on FF: You can't move it, so if you have multiple enemies it's impact is significantly reduced. You also only have a few uses of it and it will never leave the encounter, so you will more often then not just not be using it unless you DM favours fewer but deadlier encounters.

Hunter's Mark may compete with other spells, but it lasts up to an hour and spells slots are a lot more plentiful than FF uses.

A full group of goblins might take 3+ rounds. Any individual goblin, probably 1 shot.


For level 6 calculations, assuming dex was raised at level 4 (18 total), with archery style for +9 to hit against AC 15 :
With HM :
Round 1 : 4d6+8 (22), 16.5 average
Round 2 : 6d6+12 (33), 24.75 average (41.25 total)

With FF :
Round 1 : 3d6+12 (22.5), with 3 chances to trigger FF (roughly 98.5% chance of at least one hit) for 3.45 additional damage, 20.33 damage
Round 2 : Same as above (40.66 total)

So yes, looking at level 6, the math moves slightly. If you reach level 14, this will swing back in favor of FF, as the die goes up to a d8 and adds nearly a full additional point of damage per turn.

[Theodoxus]

HM is great for taking out mooks in the 5-11 HP range. Generally a d8+d6+Dex mod or 2d6+Dex mod will be a one shot for them. HM, shoot and kill. Next round, BA move the HM, shoot and kill. Repeat. Hunters with Horde Brealer in particular can quickly eliminate a swarm of mooks, especially if they don't HM the mook they got a HB shot on (if it didn't kill it). Let the truly heavy hitters like GWM fighter or raging Barbarian single target the leader of the mook squad.

FF is better for focus firing on a single large target, especially if you're sniping using pop up tactics (2 levels of rogue or going goblin for the BA hide action).

That's just from a build perspective, obviously. So I'd say which is better is determined by what you built for, what the campaign throws at you and how often you're facing fewer baddies with more HP vs more baddies with fewer.

[Witty Username]

I feel like once your at 5hp a target the use of the spell slot on HM looks questionable.
At 16 dex 6.5 damage is your average on a d6 weapon, 4 is your min damage.
So you are very likely to eliminate a target without a damage boost at HP<7 about.
Side note on this: for the 1-4 hp would it be worth it to pull out a pair of weapons for the two-weapon fighting, if you don't have the fighting style? Your average damage would be about 3.5, so you have a good shot of taking ou a target.
7-12 HP a target feels more correct to me for that idea. Since the HM becomes very likely to be a tipping point. I would argue you may have better things to do like fog clouds and entangle, or a spike growth but that will depend on the situation.
I think the only thing to argue about with FF(since most of this observation would apply to it as well) from this is that it doesn't use spell slots. So if I gets out performed by other spells, you will still have it if/when you run out of slots.