Timeline for What happens when a ranger uses Favored Foe with Hunter's Mark?
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
17 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Dec 1 at 19:20 | comment | added | justhalf | I won't do it, since it doesn't seem balanced. I'm just arguing that RAW says it's possible, but I'd rule against it. I don't find the other three answers compelling :) | |
| Dec 1 at 17:23 | comment | added | Eddymage | @justhalf well, you have 3 answers that proves you wrong, but as a DM you are free to bend the rules as you want, if your table agrees. | |
| Dec 1 at 0:27 | comment | added | justhalf | I still can't agree with other answers, since they assume the Favored Foe needs to be activated before Hunter's Mark damage is applied. Since they're simultaneous, the order could've been: hit -> HM's damage -> activate FF -> FF damage. At no point we have two conc effect. | |
| Nov 30 at 22:34 | comment | added | Eddymage | @justhalf Well, it is true that it is simultaneous, but it is not true that they could both happen, as explained in two answers and in two cancelled answers. But as I already wrote in another comment, I do not believe that allowing once those features happen together is too much overpowered. | |
| Nov 30 at 1:58 | comment | added | justhalf | @Eddymage to me it's clear the other way, haha. Both Favored and Hunter happen when you hit, so it's simultaneous. | |
| Nov 29 at 22:00 | comment | added | Eddymage | Yes, that's where we disagree. And no, I am not going to do what you propose, since what are you saying is not true: I am not saying that XGTE is not useful per se, but in this case one does not need it. I already posted my contributions on this kind of topic, resorting to this ruling when needed and not using it when not needed. | |
| Nov 29 at 21:53 | comment | added | Kirt | @Eddymage That is where we disagree, then - I don't think it is clear RAW. And I don't understand how you can say, 'since everything happens at the same time, we know we have to apply the concentration loss before we apply the damage'. But since you do think it is clear how to resolve simultaneous effects without resorting to XGtE, I would encourage you to post your own answers to the many questions on this site about simultaneous effects. You might start with [How to resolve multiple 'start of turn' triggers](How to resolve multiple 'start of turn' triggers) | |
| Nov 29 at 20:28 | comment | added | Eddymage | @Kirt I mean that in this case DM does not have to resolve anything, since it is clear from the rules. | |
| Nov 29 at 18:57 | comment | added | Eddymage | Indeed: the conclusion of that section is wrong, imo. And I am not even convinced on the main conclusion ("RAW says the DM resolves simultaneous events"). | |
| Nov 29 at 18:52 | history | edited | Kirt | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added 380 characters in body
|
| Nov 29 at 18:47 | comment | added | Kirt | @Eddymage That section is not necessary for the answer, and in fact the answer assumes that FF does require concentration. That section evaluates the claim that FF requires concentration and concludes that RAW are unclear, but other similar features support RAI that it does require concentration. | |
| Nov 29 at 18:31 | comment | added | Eddymage | @justhalf Fact is that this answer is wrong: the entire section "But does Favored Foe even require concentration?" is lengthy but contains the false claim that FF does not require concentration. | |
| Nov 29 at 18:22 | history | edited | Kirt | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added 1167 characters in body
|
| Nov 29 at 17:57 | comment | added | Kirt | @justhalf You're welcome. Yeah, I'm kind of a lightning rod that way. Not my first answer to go with "This is what the rules say, but you're not gonna like it." | |
| Nov 29 at 15:22 | comment | added | justhalf | This is what I would go with as well. Thanks for putting this out (and tanking the inevitable downvotes, haha) | |
| Nov 28 at 19:21 | history | edited | Kirt | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
deleted 16 characters in body
|
| Nov 28 at 19:14 | history | answered | Kirt | CC BY-SA 4.0 |