Foe Slayer Damage Calculation Spreadsheet

[Brewksy]

I did some calculations for Foe Slayer and came to some interesting conclusions. The damage output is actually very significant, and gets much higher the more damage you do per attack.

The reason is because the +5 is actually much more valuable as a bonus to hit than as a damage bonus. Check out the attached sheet:

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1rGG3NrOCUEQmQs1_03_iFdL-K0nOfekqvooyclGvxVg/edit

Some conclusions:

A normal ranger with an Attack bonus of 8, will do an average of 20.7 damage per round. Will hit 2 times about 20% of the time and at least once 50% of the time.

A ranger using Foe Slayer will do 33.125 damage per round. Will hit 2 times about 43% of the time and at least once 48% of the time.

That’s an increase of over 50% damage per round.

Make of it what you will, but that’s vaulted Foe Slayer into one of my favourite Level 20 Class Features. Never runs out, stackable easily with a level 1 spell, and effective in any situation against your Favored Enemies.
Just tested with Swift Quiver (4 attacks per round): Damage without Foe Slayer = 41.4, Damage with Foe Slayer = 58.66

[LudicSavant]

I did some calculations for Foe Slayer and came to some interesting conclusions. The damage output is actually very significant, and gets much higher the more damage you do per attack.

The reason is because the +5 is actually much more valuable as a bonus to hit than as a damage bonus. Check out the attached spreadsheet.

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets...oyclGvxVg/edit

Some conclusions:

A normal ranger with an Attack bonus of 8, will do an average of 20.7 damage per round. Will hit 2 times about 20% of the time and at least once 50% of the time.

A ranger using Foe Slayer will do 33.125 damage per round. Will hit 2 times about 43% of the time and at least once 48% of the time.

That’s an increase of over 50% damage per round.

Make of it what you will, but that’s vaulted Foe Slayer into one of my favourite Level 20 Class Features. Never runs out, stackable easily with a level 1 spell, and effective in any situation against your Favored Enemies.
Just tested with Swift Quiver (4 attacks per round): Damage without Foe Slayer = 41.4, Damage with Foe Slayer = 58.66

You need to change the settings on your spreadsheet so that other people can view it.

[Brewksy]

Check it now? Thanks!

[Dork_Forge]

Adding +5 to your attacks in a bounded accuracy system will always be an awesome ability, imo what makes Foe Slayer lack lustre to say the least isn't the numbers, it's that it is the ONLY situational capstone. If you're not fighting a Favored Enemy it means nothing and if it can be assumed you're always fighting a specific type of monster then other class features become just as if not more appealing (extra damage on Divine Smite vs Fiends and Undead, Turn/Destroy Undead etc.), niche abilties should always be awesome in their niche but if the comepltely fail to apply outside of it (like FS does) then it's a bad ability overall.

[Greywander]

imo what makes Foe Slayer lack lustre to say the least isn't the numbers, it's that it is the ONLY situational capstone. If you're not fighting a Favored Enemy it means nothing

Are you looking at a different version than I am? It doesn't look like it requires your favored foe, you can use it on any enemy.

Edit: I thought this was a revised ranger ability. I now see it's also a PHB ranger ability. The revised ranger changed it so it didn't require your favored enemy.

[Jerrykhor]

Again with the 'never runs out' argument? Heard that one before, always thrown around by people who vouch for Champion fighters.

So what if it doesn't run out? It still sucks, being unlimited use just means it can suck all the time.

[Dork_Forge]

Are you looking at a different version than I am? It doesn't look like it requires your favored foe, you can use it on any enemy.

Edit: I thought this was a revised ranger ability. I now see it's also a PHB ranger ability. The revised ranger changed it so it didn't require your favored enemy.

"...of an attack you make against one of your favored enemies."

Unless that was errata'd after I got my phb it looks pretty clear it only works against Favored Enemies.

[Brewksy]

Oh man, so many irrelevant opinions here. It was an interesting revelation because FS is WAY more potent than a paltry +5 damage - it’s +50% damage. Regardless of your opinion of Foe Slayer itself, it sounds like a lot of you don’t even bother commenting on the actual post content and would rather just regurgitate the same argument.

But let’s engage anyways. Let’s take Fiends, Dragons and Undead are your Favored Enemies.

Of the 71 creatures with a 20+ CR:
24 are Fiends (34%)
16 are Dragons (23%)
9 are Undead (13%)

That is 70% of all monsters over 20+ CR.

Of every creature in the game:
There are 577 Humanoids. 172 Monstrosities. 165 Beasts. 141 Fiends. 136 Undead. 111 Constructs. 87 Giants. 74 Aberrations. 70 Dragons

There are 347 types of Fiends and Dragons overall.

I make the argument that you will use your Favored Enemy FAR more than you think, just based on probabilities alone. One thing that is quite universal when playing DnD is your DM often has a preference for a certain creature in the game and because of this, you’ll find these numbers even further skewed, and more usable.

But don’t let me distract you from the pitchfork gathering.

[Brewksy]

Again with the 'never runs out' argument? Heard that one before, always thrown around by people who vouch for Champion fighters.

So what if it doesn't run out? It still sucks, being unlimited use just means it can suck all the time.

The argument between something with limited use vs an always-on ability is objectively a valid argument based on usefulness and a fundamental building block of DnD itself.

I swear there are so many armchair opinions of people that dismiss arguments without reading first.

[stoutstien]

Oh man, so many irrelevant opinions here. It was an interesting revelation because FS is WAY more potent than a paltry +5 damage - it’s +50% damage. Regardless of your opinion of Foe Slayer itself, it sounds like a lot of you don’t even bother commenting on the actual post content and would rather just regurgitate the same argument.

But let’s engage anyways. Let’s take Fiends, Dragons and Undead are your Favored Enemies.

Of the 71 creatures with a 20+ CR:
24 are Fiends (34%)
16 are Dragons (23%)
9 are Undead (13%)

That is 70% of all monsters over 20+ CR.

Of every creature in the game:
There are 577 Humanoids. 172 Monstrosities. 165 Beasts. 141 Fiends. 136 Undead. 111 Constructs. 87 Giants. 74 Aberrations. 70 Dragons

There are 347 types of Fiends and Dragons overall.

I make the argument that you will use your Favored Enemy FAR more than you think, just based on probabilities alone. One thing that is quite universal when playing DnD is your DM often has a preference for a certain creature in the game and because of this, you’ll find these numbers even further skewed, and more usable.

But don’t let me distract you from the pitchfork gathering.

The problem is it's the capstone and it doesn't compare favorably even against the other bad ones. Even the revised version that doesn't need to target FE is pretty meh. I consider it tired with rogues as the worse ones in print.

[LudicSavant]

Check it now? Thanks!

I can indeed view it now.

[Aeriox]

I did some calculations for Foe Slayer and came to some interesting conclusions. The damage output is actually very significant, and gets much higher the more damage you do per attack.

The reason is because the +5 is actually much more valuable as a bonus to hit than as a damage bonus. Check out the attached sheet:

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets...oyclGvxVg/edit

Some conclusions:

A normal ranger with an Attack bonus of 8, will do an average of 20.7 damage per round. Will hit 2 times about 20% of the time and at least once 50% of the time.

A ranger using Foe Slayer will do 33.125 damage per round. Will hit 2 times about 43% of the time and at least once 48% of the time.

That’s an increase of over 50% damage per round.

Make of it what you will, but that’s vaulted Foe Slayer into one of my favourite Level 20 Class Features. Never runs out, stackable easily with a level 1 spell, and effective in any situation against your Favored Enemies.
Just tested with Swift Quiver (4 attacks per round): Damage without Foe Slayer = 41.4, Damage with Foe Slayer = 58.66

With the conclusions that you provided, why would a ranger only have an attack bonus of +8 at 20th level? It would almost certainly be +11. Also, why are you less likely to hit at least once with Foe Slayer (48% vs 50%)? I would also ask what AC you used, since a lower AC would presumably lower the benefit.

[da newt]

Yes - you are right, if your lvl 20 ranger has a 20 WIS, the +5 to hit part of FOE SLAYER is much more beneficial than the +5 to damage. Turning a miss into a hit is much better than adding a bit of damage to a hit. Well done.

BTW for the PHB version, you can only apply this bonus to one attack roll or one damage roll per turn, and only to favored enemies. You can wait to see your rolls before choosing, so if you hit without it don't use it until your last attack of the round and then dump it into damage.

[Amechra]

Is it a really good capstone? Yeah, pretty much. It definitely beats out, say, the Bard, Monk, or Warlock.

Is it the best capstone? The Ranger wishes it was, but our good friend the Barbarian laughs at Foe Slayer and takes the Ranger's lunch money. Let's compare:

+5 to one attack roll or damage roll per round, and only against your Favored Enemies (which, fair enough, you should run into quite a bit if you picked the right ones).

vs.

+2 to all attack rolls and damage rolls, +40 HP, and the ability to use the really strong buff your class is built around at-will. Bear in mind that you reliably have advantage on your attack rolls, so that +2 to attack rolls is much bigger than it initially looks.

[Dork_Forge]

Calling people's opinions irrelevant without actually disproving them isn't helping your case here, even if 70% of the potential CR20 enemies could fall into your niche (which I'm sorry but you just picked the largest spread to support your point here) here are some things to consider about why it isn't a very good capstone ability:

-To get the most out of it you need to max your secondary stat, limiting the opportunities to bump your Con or take a feat

-The potential ACTUAL DAMAGE it provides is so small at 20th level it may as well be meaningless.

-The to hit does absolutely nothing to help you if you roll a 1 or 20, so your touted ability will be useless for 10% of the die roll guaranteed (besides maybe +5 damage on one of your attacks) and depending on AC will vary in how useful it is the rest of the time.

-No matter how likely it may be based on numbers that you'll encounter a favourite enemy (which, tbh feels like a fallacy, it counts each colour of dragon as well as individually named dragons, unless your campaign revolves around them then it's a moot point, it'll likely be your DM wants a Dragon and chooses a colour. That's not the same as your DM wanting a CRX monster and having so many different options to choose from like with undead) there still is a very real possibility that you won't be able to use your capstone. It is the ONLY capstone that is situational like that and it's not like the ability is powerful enough to warrant it as a balancing act.

-You make no concession for the ability going unused on some turns because of indecision. If you hit the first attack and don't use it for damage in case you need it for to hit on the second, then you roll a 1 or low enough that the extra to hit won't help then you've wasted the ability that turn. That happens enough and you can easily get players in that position playing it safe and taking the extra damage the first time they hit, because they at least know they're GUARANTEED to benefit from it.

It would have been better off as a flat benefit to all attacks in someway that was particularly potent against your Favored Enemies, the damage could have at least equaled your Ranger level to make it worthwhile.

[Jerrykhor]

The argument between something with limited use vs an always-on ability is objectively a valid argument based on usefulness and a fundamental building block of DnD itself.

I swear there are so many armchair opinions of people that dismiss arguments without reading first.

Armchair opinions? Hahaha. Do you have any idea how high the power level of Level 20 is?

I'll give you a similar ability: Kensei monk's capstone, Unerring Accuracy. It comes in at 17, and is leagues better than your Foe Slayer. It works on any creature type, is not tied to an ability score, works on Nat 1, and grants you another chance at a crit.

[Brewksy]

Calling people's opinions irrelevant without actually disproving them isn't helping your case here, even if 70% of the potential CR20 enemies could fall into your niche (which I'm sorry but you just picked the largest spread to support your point here) here are some things to consider about why it isn't a very good capstone ability:

-To get the most out of it you need to max your secondary stat, limiting the opportunities to bump your Con or take a feat

Much like every other hybrid class like Paladin, Eldritch Knight, Arcane Trickster, Arcane Archer, and even Barbarians and Monks.

-The potential ACTUAL DAMAGE it provides is so small at 20th level it may as well be meaningless.

52 to 71 average damage per round is not inconsequential. ThatÂ’s practically 1 more hit per round... or rather, the difference between killing something with 200hp in 3 rounds vs 4. And I didnÂ’t even account for ...

-The to hit does absolutely nothing to help you if you roll a 1 or 20, so your touted ability will be useless for 10% of the die roll guaranteed (besides maybe +5 damage on one of your attacks) and depending on AC will vary in how useful it is the rest of the time.

... Critical Hits. Which BTW, would only favor the FS because theyÂ’re getting more hits per round and more chances at critical hits. Meanwhile, the 1s are static - everyone suffers when they roll a 1, FS or not.

Or I could calculate out the chance of rolling all 1s and subtract that from the damage too?

-No matter how likely it may be based on numbers that you'll encounter a favourite enemy (which, tbh feels like a fallacy, it counts each colour of dragon as well as individually named dragons, unless your campaign revolves around them then it's a moot point, it'll likely be your DM wants a Dragon and chooses a colour. That's not the same as your DM wanting a CRX monster and having so many different options to choose from like with undead) there still is a very real possibility that you won't be able to use your capstone. It is the ONLY capstone that is situational like that and it's not like the ability is powerful enough to warrant it as a balancing act.

If your campaign has no dragons, you wouldnÂ’t have them as a favored enemy. YouÂ’re likely to pick the most common big enemy you run into because of your DMs preferences. LetÂ’s say your FE runs 50% of all monsters - that still gives you a 50% increase on 50% of the baddies you face...

-You make no concession for the ability going unused on some turns because of indecision. If you hit the first attack and don't use it for damage in case you need it for to hit on the second, then you roll a 1 or low enough that the extra to hit won't help then you've wasted the ability that turn. That happens enough and you can easily get players in that position playing it safe and taking the extra damage the first time they hit, because they at least know they're GUARANTEED to benefit from it.

Sure. Except thatÂ’s an edge case. Did you even look at the document? The chance of missing all shots is 0.3%, and the chance of only hitting the last shot is 0.3%. Do you need me to do the math here for you?

It would have been better off as a flat benefit to all attacks in someway that was particularly potent against your Favored Enemies, the damage could have at least equaled your Ranger level to make it worthwhile.

Perhaps - my point was to calculate the overall damage potential that no one had done before and you all came out here to nag about how little damage it is... or how niche it is... which weÂ’ve heard you all pine about endlessly in every other thread about it. Maybe we could keep the topic specifically about the calculations themselves? Or maybe you could actually check out the calculations and use it to your advantage rather than trying to politicize a literal spreadsheet.

[Brewksy]

Armchair opinions? Hahaha. Do you have any idea how high the power level of Level 20 is?

I'll give you a similar ability: Kensei monk's capstone, Unerring Accuracy. It comes in at 17, and is leagues better than your Foe Slayer. It works on any creature type, is not tied to an ability score, works on Nat 1, and grants you another chance at a crit.

It’s called the equivalent of advantage. What’s your point? These are not difficult concepts. Get me the spreadsheet on how much of a difference that makes on the damage of your typical Kensei Monk and we can compare.

[KorvinStarmast]

But don’t let me distract you from the pitchfork gathering.

Snort: that got me giggling. Thanks for the effort, and the analysis.

[Dark.Revenant]

Foe Slayer should not have been a capstone, it should have been part of the Favored Enemy mechanic in the first place.

As for my other complaints with it as a capstone:

• Reliance on a secondary stat can make it far weaker for most Ranger builds.
• It's easy to be screwed out of its benefit because you chose the wrong creature types early on.
• You can lose the benefit by failing to apply it to the correct roll (e.g. you hit on attack #1, save the bonus for attack #2, but then roll too low for the bonus to help you with attack #2).
• It does not evoke the fantasy of a legendary ranger.

You've proven mathematically that when used optimally, it's a statistically relevant bonus to combat power. However, I already knew that and hated Foe Slayer anyway.

[Dork_Forge]

Much like every other hybrid class like Paladin, Eldritch Knight, Arcane Trickster, Arcane Archer, and even Barbarians and Monks.

I was referring to capstones, it is the only capstone in the game that's effectiveness is directly tied to a stat (the closest you get otherwise is the Fighter's attack stat and Barbarian benefiting the most if their Str and Con are maxed). That's not a good thing, especially when not only is it tied to a stat, its use is also situational to you fighting a favored enemy (Revised Ranger removed the restriction for a reason).

Even then your examples aren't strictly true, you can quite easily play an Eldritch Knight and not rely on your Int modifier at all, the same can be said of Arcane Trickster.

52 to 71 average damage per round is not inconsequential. ThatÂ’s practically 1 more hit per round... or rather, the difference between killing something with 200hp in 3 rounds vs 4. And I didnÂ’t even account for ...

I have no idea where you're getting that number from, your own example in the OP showed a Swift Quiver Ranger's damage going from 41.4 to 58.66. So going by your own numbers, using FS to increase your to hit results in an accuracy adjusted DPR increase of 17.26.

... Critical Hits. Which BTW, would only favor the FS because theyÂ’re getting more hits per round and more chances at critical hits. Meanwhile, the 1s are static - everyone suffers when they roll a 1, FS or not.

Or I could calculate out the chance of rolling all 1s and subtract that from the damage too?

Foe Slayer has no impact on Critical Hits whatsoever, it doesn't increase the number of attacks you make, give you advantage, allow rerolls or allow your roll to be a crit if the bonus to hit took the die to 20 or greater. The additional damage it can give is also a fixed number, so that's also not benefitting crits at all.

Though you missed my point entirely: on any given single roll of the d20, there's is a 10% chance you will roll a 1 or a 20 and Foe Slayer's to hit bonus will be entirely useless, leaving you with the potentially +5 damage boost to a single attack, at 20th level.

If your campaign has no dragons, you wouldnÂ’t have them as a favored enemy. YouÂ’re likely to pick the most common big enemy you run into because of your DMs preferences. LetÂ’s say your FE runs 50% of all monsters - that still gives you a 50% increase on 50% of the baddies you face...

Just because you fought x monster type before doesn't mean that it will be particularly common at 20th level, the fact that this capstone can not be applicable based on something entirely out of the player's control is just plain bad no matter how you look at it. It's a capstone that relies primarily on the DM sticking to your FEs (which I would as a DM, just as much to not feel like I was screwing the Ranger as much as I was doing it for theme).

Sure. Except thatÂ’s an edge case. Did you even look at the document? The chance of missing all shots is 0.3%, and the chance of only hitting the last shot is 0.3%. Do you need me to do the math here for you?

I'm good thanks, though you're rounding in favour of your argument (and assuming it's a Swift Quiver Ranger), your sheet says 0.39% and that's assuming an AC of 20 at 20th level where players will be rolling with a +11 to hit if not greater. I know I'm not throwing an AC my players are going to hit so easily for their epic level combat, even if it was just a lich, they can Shield to 22AC.

You based this off dragons with an AC of 20 in your Calculations, except there's 8 types of Ancient Dragon (non named), of those only two have an AC of 20, whilst two have an AC of 21 and six have an AC of 22.

So please excuse me if I take your calculations with a pinch of salt when they're so broadly applied and with a relatively low AC for the level of play.

Perhaps - my point was to calculate the overall damage potential that no one had done before and you all came out here to nag about how little damage it is... or how niche it is... which weÂ’ve heard you all pine about endlessly in every other thread about it. Maybe we could keep the topic specifically about the calculations themselves? Or maybe you could actually check out the calculations and use it to your advantage rather than trying to politicize a literal spreadsheet.

If you wanted people to solely comment on the math, well I don't think that's very likely on an internet forum, but you should have specified that was the only thing that should be spoken about and not insulted people's opinions on the ability.

As for your math itself, being based on AC20 is a flaw when no other ACs are provided and I'm not seeing how a single to hit bonus per round is a 50% DPR increase, especially when you base that off of two attacks per round (which increases the relative impact of the ability) but then reference the four attack Swift Quiver numbers otherwise. Your argument seems to favour your own bias, rather than just letting the numbers speak for themselves, which is what you seem to want.

Though maybe you missed why it is so widely panned as a captsone: It's reliant on a secondary stat and is dependent on you facing your FE. A to hit bonus of +5 will always be huge in bounded accuracy, no one every disputed that (that I'm aware of).

[Brewksy]

I was referring to capstones, it is the only capstone in the game that's effectiveness is directly tied to a stat (the closest you get otherwise is the Fighter's attack stat and Barbarian benefiting the most if their Str and Con are maxed). That's not a good thing, especially when not only is it tied to a stat, its use is also situational to you fighting a favored enemy (Revised Ranger removed the restriction for a reason).

Except Wisdom also makes a Ranger’s spell DCs better, so it’s not a lost cause in boosting Wisdom.

I have no idea where you're getting that number from, your own example in the OP showed a Swift Quiver Ranger's damage going from 41.4 to 58.66. So going by your own numbers, using FS to increase your to hit results in an accuracy adjusted DPR increase of 17.26.

17.26 is 41% more damage.

Foe Slayer has no impact on Critical Hits whatsoever, it doesn't increase the number of attacks you make, give you advantage, allow rerolls or allow your roll to be a crit if the bonus to hit took the die to 20 or greater. The additional damage it can give is also a fixed number, so that's also not benefitting crits at all.

So? Irrelevant. Critical hits even out with or without.

Though you missed my point entirely: on any given single roll of the d20, there's is a 10% chance you will roll a 1 or a 20 and Foe Slayer's to hit bonus will be entirely useless, leaving you with the potentially +5 damage boost to a single attack, at 20th level.

Yeah, that’s factored in already. Again, it’s obvious you’ve not even bothered to read the sheet.

Just because you fought x monster type before doesn't mean that it will be particularly common at 20th level, the fact that this capstone can not be applicable based on something entirely out of the player's control is just plain bad no matter how you look at it. It's a capstone that relies primarily on the DM sticking to your FEs (which I would as a DM, just as much to not feel like I was screwing the Ranger as much as I was doing it for theme).

I mean you can take Oozes as your Favored enemy I suppose?

I'm good thanks, though you're rounding in favour of your argument (and assuming it's a Swift Quiver Ranger), your sheet says 0.39% and that's assuming an AC of 20 at 20th level where players will be rolling with a +11 to hit if not greater. I know I'm not throwing an AC my players are going to hit so easily for their epic level combat, even if it was just a lich, they can Shield to 22AC.

Higher AC benefits Foe Slayer even more. The harder it is to hit, the more valuable it is. But then you’d know this if you even tried to use the sheet.

You based this off dragons with an AC of 20 in your Calculations, except there's 8 types of Ancient Dragon (non named), of those only two have an AC of 20, whilst two have an AC of 21 and six have an AC of 22.

So please excuse me if I take your calculations with a pinch of salt when they're so broadly applied and with a relatively low AC for the level of play.

If you wanted people to solely comment on the math, well I don't think that's very likely on an internet forum, but you should have specified that was the only thing that should be spoken about and not insulted people's opinions on the ability.

I’ll disregard anyone that responds to a post with proper research and instead of reading, spouts the same old rehashed arguments in direct contradiction of the evidence. Add to the discussion, don’t distract.

As for your math itself, being based on AC20 is a flaw when no other ACs are provided and I'm not seeing how a single to hit bonus per round is a 50% DPR increase, especially when you base that off of two attacks per round (which increases the relative impact of the ability) but then reference the four attack Swift Quiver numbers otherwise. Your argument seems to favour your own bias, rather than just letting the numbers speak for themselves, which is what you seem to want.

Though maybe you missed why it is so widely panned as a captsone: It's reliant on a secondary stat and is dependent on you facing your FE. A to hit bonus of +5 will always be huge in bounded accuracy, no one every disputed that (that I'm aware of).

[Frogreaver]

I did some calculations for Foe Slayer and came to some interesting conclusions. The damage output is actually very significant, and gets much higher the more damage you do per attack.

The reason is because the +5 is actually much more valuable as a bonus to hit than as a damage bonus. Check out the attached sheet:

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets...oyclGvxVg/edit

Some conclusions:

A normal ranger with an Attack bonus of 8, will do an average of 20.7 damage per round. Will hit 2 times about 20% of the time and at least once 50% of the time.

A ranger using Foe Slayer will do 33.125 damage per round. Will hit 2 times about 43% of the time and at least once 48% of the time.

That’s an increase of over 50% damage per round.

Your chance to hit at least once is not going to go down with an ability that adds accuracy. 50% vs 48%. That part is incorrect.

[Dork_Forge]

Huh, well this was a blast from the past.

Except Wisdom also makes a Ranger’s spell DCs better, so it’s not a lost cause in boosting Wisdom.

I don't think I ever claimed that boosting Wisdom was 'a lost cause,' the effectiveness of a capstone relying on a secondary stat is still bad.

17.26 is 41% more damage.

Looking at the posts, I believe the problem was you using numbers that made no sense, I pointed out that the numbers you were saying didn't correlate to the math you posted. Replying that it's x% more damage doesn't change that it didn't add up, or actually address what I said.

So? Irrelevant. Critical hits even out with or without.

A Capstone being potentially irrlevant 10% of the time seems pretty relevant to you arguing it's better than everyone says it is.

Yeah, that’s factored in already. Again, it’s obvious you’ve not even bothered to read the sheet.

I didn't read it again now, but I remember reading it multiple times when this thread came out, please don't assume what I have or haven't read.

Let me help you out though with a simple concept: regardless what average DPR boost an ability may have, people don't usually experience an average. They experience what actually happens at the table. The capstone you've persisted for 20 levels to attain not applying 10% of the time at random feels bad. The fact that this is the case when fighting the specific enemy it's meant to work against is even worse. On average being better off by x amount doesn't usually matter to a player, like when damage calcs average out a Champion's damage, the player doesn't experience or remember the x.y whatever number on average over their career, they remember critting and throwing extra dice.

I mean you can take Oozes as your Favored enemy I suppose?

I have no idea why you said this. I mean, yeah you could, so..?

Higher AC benefits Foe Slayer even more. The harder it is to hit, the more valuable it is. But then you’d know this if you even tried to use the sheet.

1) I did read the sheet

2) You don't need to read a spreadsheet to understand the concept

3) The point I made still stands

I’ll disregard anyone that responds to a post with proper research and instead of reading, spouts the same old rehashed arguments in direct contradiction of the evidence. Add to the discussion, don’t distract.

Part of my argument was pointing out that your own numbers cited didn't make sense and that your calculations were based on a favourable AC, y'know challenging the evidence you provided. It feels more like you just don't like criticism of this ability because you either like it or have gotten it so firmly in your head that your math makes it a good ability despite all of the factors to the contrary.

Worth noting that the post above my reply from Frogreaver is about pointing out inaccuracy in your numbers also...

[Brewksy]

Your chance to hit at least once is not going to go down with an ability that adds accuracy. 50% vs 48%. That part is incorrect.

That’s an issue when the spreadsheet it the roll you need to hit is less than 5. To properly calculate, make sure that the difference between the Attack Bonus and the AC is 5 or greater.

(It helps to add in Sharpshooter, as that will keep the Attack Roll down as well)

[Brewksy]

I don't think I ever claimed that boosting Wisdom was 'a lost cause,' the effectiveness of a capstone relying on a secondary stat is still bad.

In what sense?

Looking at the posts, I believe the problem was you using numbers that made no sense, I pointed out that the numbers you were saying didn't correlate to the math you posted. Replying that it's x% more damage doesn't change that it didn't add up, or actually address what I said.

The range in increase in damage is anywhere from 20%-100% more damage. Is that more palatable?

A Capstone being potentially irrlevant 10% of the time seems pretty relevant to you arguing it's better than everyone says it is.

Critical hit rates are already baked in, although damage is not.

Do you know the difference in damage if I include critical damage? 5% of the hits will do an average of 4.5 more damage. So add 0.225 to the damage numbers if you want?

Also, if I did add critical damage, it affects both sides of the equation.

I didn't read it again now, but I remember reading it multiple times when this thread came out, please don't assume what I have or haven't read.

Let me help you out though with a simple concept: regardless what average DPR boost an ability may have, people don't usually experience an average. They experience what actually happens at the table. The capstone you've persisted for 20 levels to attain not applying 10% of the time at random feels bad. The fact that this is the case when fighting the specific enemy it's meant to work against is even worse. On average being better off by x amount doesn't usually matter to a player, like when damage calcs average out a Champion's damage, the player doesn't experience or remember the x.y whatever number on average over their career, they remember critting and throwing extra dice.

Are you seriously here arguing that average is not a reliable form of statistical analysis? Or that somehow statistical analysis is not a basis for evaluating the effectiveness of abilities? I... actually do not know how to argue with that. In the case of your feelings then, yes - Foe Slayer is bad because it does not make you feel good. You are absolutely right.

Part of my argument was pointing out that your own numbers cited didn't make sense and that your calculations were based on a favourable AC, y'know challenging the evidence you provided. It feels more like you just don't like criticism of this ability because you either like it or have gotten it so firmly in your head that your math makes it a good ability despite all of the factors to the contrary.

I put your Dragon AC 22 numbers in. The damage output is now a 47% increase with Swift Quiver, and a 68% increase with just 2 normal attacks. Go ahead and take a look.

AC 25, it’s even more pronounced (74-102% increase). In every case, epic battles with epic monsters that are Favored Enemies, results in a HUGE damage bonus over regular Ranger damage.

You know what AC is unfavourable to Foe Slayer? AC of 9 or lower, in which case the +5 will only be useful for damage. So yeah. Zombies? Oozes?

The spreadsheet does not work well when you choose an AC that is less than 5 higher than the Attack Bonus (which should not happen with Sharpshooter). Because the hit rates become useless and critical hit rates no longer apply.

[Brewksy]

Also, for comparison - a Champion (who is one of the most consistent damage subclasses of the Fighter classes) will do about 38 damage per round against an AC 22 Dragon with Piercer, GWM Feat, GW Fighting Style, 4 attacks, etc. The Ranger with Favoured/Foe Slayer/Swift Quiver would put up 48 damage per round.

And yes I have a spreadsheet for that too. I do analytics for a living. I’d put this into a Python program but I’m ok with averages and not too worried about standard deviation or anything.

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/19vGioKLXgRfy7rsk88MOVOsAHcGNOVm7SMtejw5Rooo/edit

[Justin Sane]

Even if we concede that Foe Slayer is a good numbers boost, that doesn't solve its main issue: it's just a numbers boost.

Capstones are supposed to be exciting things that nobody else can do. Having a straight-up semi-passive ability as a capstone is boring.

[Brewksy]

Even if we concede that Foe Slayer is a good numbers boost, that doesn't solve its main issue: it's just a numbers boost.

Capstones are supposed to be exciting things that nobody else can do. Having a straight-up semi-passive ability as a capstone is boring.

Sure? I mean I didn’t do this analysis to imply that all capstones are good - I merely made one comment:

“ The damage output is actually very significant, and gets much higher the more damage you do per attack.”

And here’s what that was met with:

“... it is the ONLY situational capstone” (ok?)

“ It still sucks, being unlimited use just means it can suck all the time.” (well, it obviously doesn’t suck when fighting Favored enemies, I never claimed more than that)

“ The potential ACTUAL DAMAGE it provides is so small at 20th level it may as well be meaningless.” (completely ignoring all evidence to the contrary)

“ You make no concession for the ability going unused on some turns because of indecision.” (Which is actually encapsulated in the results)

“ The to hit does absolutely nothing to help you if you roll a 1 or 20, so your touted ability will be useless for 10% of the die roll guaranteed” (Which is also measured by the spreadsheet)

“ is leagues better than your Foe Slayer” (again a claim I never made originally, but obviously it struck a nerve. Also, reroll on one attack is actually worse than +5, but this guy doesn’t care. 13.82 vs 15.5 average rolls)

It’s like half of the responses here don’t even want to see analysis, instead they’re out here just waiting for someone to mention a word they don’t like and pile on.

You made a comment similar to this guy:

“ You've proven mathematically that when used optimally, it's a statistically relevant bonus to combat power. However, I already knew that and hated Foe Slayer anyway.”

Those are legit comments and valid criticisms. He doesn’t like it, and that’s fair. I never said you had to instantly like it, I just showed the evidence that when it does work it’s mathematically impressive.

But yeah, they can grabbing those pitchforks, and wait for me to post something about Beast Masters and PDKs being better than they think, because I’m loving this hate.

[Frogreaver]

Sure? I mean I didn’t do this analysis to imply that all capstones are good - I merely made one comment:

“ The damage output is actually very significant, and gets much higher the more damage you do per attack.”

And here’s what that was met with:

“... it is the ONLY situational capstone” (ok?)

“ It still sucks, being unlimited use just means it can suck all the time.” (well, it obviously doesn’t suck when fighting Favored enemies, I never claimed more than that)

“ The potential ACTUAL DAMAGE it provides is so small at 20th level it may as well be meaningless.” (completely ignoring all evidence to the contrary)

“ You make no concession for the ability going unused on some turns because of indecision.” (Which is actually encapsulated in the results)

“ The to hit does absolutely nothing to help you if you roll a 1 or 20, so your touted ability will be useless for 10% of the die roll guaranteed” (Which is also measured by the spreadsheet)

“ is leagues better than your Foe Slayer” (again a claim I never made originally, but obviously it struck a nerve. Also, reroll on one attack is actually worse than +5, but this guy doesn’t care. 13.82 vs 15.5 average rolls)

It’s like half of the responses here don’t even want to see analysis, instead they’re out here just waiting for someone to mention a word they don’t like and pile on.

You made a comment similar to this guy:

“ You've proven mathematically that when used optimally, it's a statistically relevant bonus to combat power. However, I already knew that and hated Foe Slayer anyway.”

Those are legit comments and valid criticisms. He doesn’t like it, and that’s fair. I never said you had to instantly like it, I just showed the evidence that when it does work it’s mathematically impressive.

But yeah, they can grabbing those pitchforks, and wait for me to post something about Beast Masters and PDKs being better than they think, because I’m loving this hate.

IMO. It could allow you to insta kill the 3 favored enemy types and it would still be a bad ability.

You seem to be overly focused on - when you fight a FE it’s good. I’m not aware of anyone that disputes that.

The problem with it has always been that it leaves you at the mercy of the campaign for whether or not you ever get to use your ability.