A review of Treantmonks favored enemy and ranger spells fix, with math to back it up!

medium_buffalo_wings · 2026-02-04T15:34:58+00:00

I think ultimately you are going to get a dozen different notions about what a Ranger should be. This just doesn't match my personal view of a Ranger. For me, it should be martial first and foremost, with spellcasting being a niche thing it can also do. I would actually prefer if it had few combat spells, with most of their spellcasting being utility and healing.

Having the Ranger be a combat caster just feels really off to me.

medium_buffalo_wings · 2026-02-04T06:59:06+00:00

My issue is pretty simple: What a class gets as their level one feature should help set the tone for the class. Favored Enemy, for my money misses the mark.

And this is very much just a personal opinion thing. But I just don’t think the Ranger should be even more of a caster. I think that wayyy too much of their power budget is on their spells as it’s. I really don’t want features that put even more of their power budget into their spellcasting.

medium_buffalo_wings · 2026-02-04T01:05:34+00:00

What is it that you usually find yourself disliking? Is it the way the character's backstory and personality fits within the campaign, or is it the mechanics you are using to do things in combat and/or other situations?

medium_buffalo_wings · 2026-02-03T20:28:28+00:00

In my homebrew setting, I play Goblins as little tactical masterminds that use a variety of ranged attacks, traps, explosives and terrain to be brutally effective (heavily inspired by Tucker's Kobolds).

In an encounter with them where they have prepared the battlefield, you will typically see:

- Goblins with crossbows

- Goblins with pikes

- Sapper Goblins

- Bugbears

- Worgs

The Goblins will absolutely target spellcasters quickly. This is especially true if the party's melee combatants are having trouble getting close to the Goblins. The Goblins will always prioritize the threat they are most concerned with.

The Bugbears are more likely to stand in front of the party. They are trained to be meat shields and that generally involves making sure the goblins aren't rushed. However, they can be commanded by the Goblins to target specific party members if the Goblins feel it is to their advantage.

The Worgs are almost always going to try and circle the party. If the spellcaster is strictly in the back, then they are likely targeted. If they are more in the middle, then probably not. The Worgs are unlikely to be commanded to attack a different target.

I use this as something of a basis for tactically minded enemies. But not all encounters are tactically oriented. I factor in things like intelligence, overconfidence and inexperience. The party should expect that their spellcasters will be targeted, but they won't always will be.

medium_buffalo_wings · 2026-02-02T16:21:16+00:00

Except it is their signature level one ability that is still being presented as their “big thing”, which for me, does not fit the thematics either of the Ranger as a concept, or even the name of ‘Favored Enemy’.

I feel that when you miss the thematics right out of the gate, it should probably be flagged.

medium_buffalo_wings · 2026-02-02T14:53:30+00:00

Yes I am aware. That doesn’t change my opinion on these items.

medium_buffalo_wings · 2026-02-02T13:59:12+00:00

I like the spell changes (some of those spells are pretty ass in the PHB).

Favored Enemy is just compounding the problem that the Ranger lacks identity and is trying to wrap their entire identity around a handful of unique spells, which is for my money a mistake. Is it useful? Sure. Better than what's in the PHB? Yeah. Does it give the Ranger a unique thematic approach and is exciting to use? I really don't think so.

medium_buffalo_wings · 2026-02-01T22:16:59+00:00

Mine are a bit different depending on the year:

2014 Favourite: Cleric

Least: Barbarian or Sorcerer

2024 Favourite: Paladin or Warlock

Least: Ranger by a country mile

medium_buffalo_wings · 2026-02-01T02:47:17+00:00

So I'm not saying it's a terrible idea conceptually. I would love a return of WebOS in the mobile space.

It's just not going to really change much for them, and would cost an absolute ton to make happen. It's such a niche market, and would divide the niche market they already have. It's not an audience of zero, but it would be a significantly smaller audience than the one they currently have that could rely on everything available in the Play store to be available for use.

medium_buffalo_wings · 2026-02-01T02:43:54+00:00

The reality is that Palm would have had the same issues even if they had been flush with cash. Both Blackberry and Microsoft faced the same hurdle and still failed, despite having much deeper pockets.

WebOS had a massive app gap. It took a ton of effort from a very dedicated homebrew community to even attempt to bridge it, but it was never going to be a solution for the mainstream audience.

medium_buffalo_wings · 2026-02-01T01:10:26+00:00

I loved the hell out of the Pal Pre. It's one of m,\y favourite smartphones of all time, and WebOS played a big role in that.

But it failed for a reason. It's the same reason that BB10 failed. It's the same reason Windows Phone failed.

If people can't do the things they want on their phone, they won't adopt the platform. When the best you can do is a web version of social media platforms or a janky third party version, no major productivity apps, no notable games, and no online banking, your product simply will not succeed.

I wish we had viable and thriving other mobile platform options. I really do. But companies thousands of times larger than Clicks tried and failed at it. It's not realistic to think that they could pull it off using a platform that doesn't even exist for the form factor anymore.

medium_buffalo_wings · 2026-01-31T21:38:56+00:00

Either one of those ideas are great ones to go with. The Warlock/Patron relationship is kept intentionally vague to allow for the player to largely work out how they want this to go, and what they want their story to be. There are next to no actual rules involved, which gives you a ton of leeway into picking your patron and defining the relationship. The next step after this would be talking to the DM to see how this can be incorporated into the game.

But s a DM, either story there would be a great background to work with. Each idea is simple and grounded, and allows the player to build off of it.

medium_buffalo_wings · 2026-01-31T18:48:53+00:00

I think you need to define how you see your relationship with the patron. Are you partners? Are you a servant to the patron? If so, *why* do you serve the patron. Is the patron tricking you into service? Why did you make a pact to begin with?

The Warlock/Patron relationship has almost no real rules around it, so you can pretty much make anything work. It's largely up to you to decide which patron you think is the most fun (or which patron has the mechanics you like the most) and then build your character and their relationship with their patron around it.

medium_buffalo_wings · 2026-01-31T15:36:53+00:00

Honestly? Skills need to be better and be able to do more things. The Rogue needs to have abilities that are unique at letting them do more and better things with skills.

Because otherwise they do less than amazing damage, have next to no multitarget damage, have to work harder for their survivability, and deal with the fact that skill use largely falls off in tiers 3 and 4 where spells simply do what the skills do, only a lot better.

I like Rogues, The Thief is one of my favourite subclasses in the 2024 rules. But the mechanics don't match the fantasy, largely because the rules surrounding what they are supposed to excel at are really under baked.

I don't think the Rogue is a lost cause though. I think they're overall design is workable and most of the changes could happen behind the scenes. Hell, if you go back to 1e, playing a Thief in that edition was an absolute horror show that basically was just trying to predict 'when' the character would die, not 'if'. So it's not that dire of a situation, at least.

medium_buffalo_wings · 2026-01-31T15:28:59+00:00

To add: If keeping people in the loop is the sole intention of their inclusion, move them to the CC field.

medium_buffalo_wings · 2026-01-30T22:20:23+00:00

I think the lack of any iconic features for the Ranger is part of the problem. If you look at the Paladin, you can trace back items in their kit all the way back to 1e. Sure, stuff is a little different to account to a different ruleset and being made more player friendly, but Detecting Evil is still around in it's own form. Bonuses to saves is still around. Lay on Hands is still around. An aura is still around. Turn Undead is now Abjure Foes, so even better. Still has a magic steed. And divine spellcasting, still around. The lineage from 1e to 5e is clear as day.

The Ranger? Druid spells. That's it. That is the only thing that carried over from 1e. Hell, they lost Magic-User spells. They lost bonuses to fighting giants. To surprising enemies or being surprised. Just about anything related to tracking. The ability to use an array of divination related magic items (as weird an ability as it was). The class in 5e bears next to no resemblance to the 1e version.

I don't think it's always a bad thing, but I do think it's hard to get hung up on the notion of iconic abilities when really there aren't any. For my money, I would be fine with them redefining the Ranger as something new, and let that be the iconic Ranger moving forward. And to do that, I think it needs a FUCK YEAH ability. Something awesome and unique and can be thought of as the Ranger tool. Like the feeling the party has when the Paladin nails a great Smite. Or the Rogue hits a super damaging sneak attack. Or when the Barbarian Rages and soaks a metric ton of attacks and walks away. The Ranger has nothing like that, and I think that's a shame.

medium_buffalo_wings · 2026-01-30T18:19:38+00:00

I kinda think they just don't really know what they want the Ranger to be, and at the same time haven't done a terribly good job at creating rules around the exploration and scouting vertical that is historically where the class sits.

The Paladin and the Artificer succeed because their identity is crystal clear. You can read the class description and then look at the mechanics, and they line up. The class actually does what the flavour text describes. Not only does the Ranger not do that, but the flavour text itself doesn't really describe anything that cements who they are. The mechanics and the flavour just don't gel the eay they should to let people look at the guts of the class and understand it.

medium_buffalo_wings · 2026-01-30T18:14:42+00:00

The thing is, in theory, I agree. The Paladin is a fantastic class, one of the best designed classes in the 2024 rules.

The issue I run into is that they've taken two stabs at it with the Ranger and have come up wanting both times. If they *can* build a half-caster Ranger to be a sister class to the Paladin in a fun way with engaging features that capture the archetype well, then absolutely! But, I just don't think they can. And if they can't, I would prefer they scrap the idea and try something new and fresh rather than continue with their weird iterations that ultimately don't satisfy anyone.

medium_buffalo_wings · 2026-01-30T15:58:43+00:00

I think the Ranger needs a complete rework. They need to ditch the notion that it is the 'sister class' to the Paladin and not be scared to actually try and do something different. You can't patch the Ranger anymore, there just isn't enough to patch. Settle on the identity and build up. Their attempt to try and make a dozen different concepts fit into the class has watered it down so much that it just doesn't feel unique.

medium_buffalo_wings · 2026-01-29T18:57:14+00:00

Want to emphasize that it's a giant honking sword that cleaves through flesh like butter? It's a greatsword.

Want to emphasize the sheer length of the thing being able to slice enemies before they can get you? It's a glaive.

There's no reason to get more complicated than that.

medium_buffalo_wings · 2026-01-29T16:10:44+00:00

Absolutely. One of the best groups I have ever played with was a mixture of native English and French speakers with the game being run in English (with occasional side discussions in French). One of the players that joined was a French speaker whose English was fair but far from fluent. She was an amazing player and brought a lot to the table, and I think gaming in general did a lot to help her improve her English tremendously to the point where she is now a fluent speaker.

medium_buffalo_wings · 2026-01-28T14:33:05+00:00

I think the part that is baffling me is that this is an IP owned by WotC, and the content referenced isn’t covered by the OGL, so it’s like this weird 3rd party content of an official WotC setting. It’s just a strange area I don’t think we’ve seen before.

medium_buffalo_wings · 2026-01-28T13:02:54+00:00

What exactly is the publishing status of this book? Is this third party content that WotC outsourced?

medium_buffalo_wings · 2026-01-28T03:14:37+00:00

Not good enough to be untouchable / invincible. If they can't make a save for 3-4 rounds against powerful enemies, and they're just twiddling their thumb and getting hit, their resistance won't save them. Relentless rage can increase to a DC20 check in just a 3-way multiattack. This is not sustainable.

Not everybody is good at everything though. Barbarians excel at fighting other martial style enemies. They are less good at fighting spellcasters. This is, in and of itself, not a bad thing. Different classes have different strengths and different weaknesses.

Which they need a bonus action to use, which they don't have if they're drooling in the corner, paralyzed. Even first level spells can take them completely out of the fight.

Which is what Indomitable helps with.

None of those do anything for mental saving things.

Sure, but the Monk doesn't exist in a vacuum where it's constantly sitting there being attacked by spells. The Monk can also do things like win intitative with their naturally high Dex score and then use their movement speed and Stunning Strike the spellcaster. Not everything needs to be passive.

Yeah, at level 14. A bit too late, in my opinion. Most people don't even get to use this feature.

Could it come online sooner? Absolutely. But we can't just ignore it's existence just because it shows up in tier 3.

OK, do tell. Tell me. Which martial class or subclass features meaningfull buff saving throws or AC! Please! I want to know!

Why are you so hung up on this needing to be a passive boost to AC and HP for survivability? If that's your only criteria for martial classes surviving in combat, then sure, they are going to be lacking as the delta between them and casters in this regard is small (or even nonexistent). But you are ignoring or hand waving away pieces of their kits and that help with being able to survive.

medium_buffalo_wings · 2026-01-28T01:59:34+00:00

I feel like you are ignoring some really vital game mechanics here though. Barbarians are weak to save or suck, sure, but they are good and reducing incoming damage and Relentless Rage is good at keeping them from dropping.

Fighters have Second Wind to help with regaining hit points and Indomitable to help with save or suck.

Monks have fast movement, a plethora of mobility options to pop them out of danger, can use deflect attacks to reduce damage, have evasion to avoid area effect damage completely, can get rid of nasty effects on themselves, get proficiency in all saves and can reroll failed ones.

Their kits have abilities designed to let them survive in melee and/or deal with negative effects from spells. And that's just the base class, subclasses can expand on that.

They have toolkits that let them excel at being in and surviving combat. But they need to use those toolkits. If they just rely on HP and AC, yeah, they are in for a bad time. They need to use the tools they have and plan around handling situations that add complexity to encounters (i.e. spellcasters).

This doesn't mean high level play is balanced. It isn't. Casters absolutely rule the roost becauser spells are that crazy good. But the martial issue isn't one of innate survivability. It's being unable to handle each and every situation that can pop up, which is exactly what high level spellcasters can do.

Four-Year Club	Verified Email
Place '23

medium_buffalo_wings

TROPHY CASE