Homebrew review questions are not the most popular type here
They are 100% welcome and you should always feel free to post one. But they seem to draw the attention of fewer users who are interested in writing answers. No matter how well-written, it may simply take extra time before someone comes across the question and is in the mood to answer it. So take heart-- a delay may have nothing to do with the question itself. The flip side of that is that even if you can improve a homebrew review question, it may still take time to draw any answers.
I think that this particular question could be better organized
It contains a lot of the information that makes for a solid homebrew review question, so well done on that front. But at the same time, it is long enough to be a block-of-text post. That's also okay, but those take more effort to read and tend to get less attention as a result.
It also lacks organizational structure(s) which would make it easier to read and reference. I personally like things like line breaks and descriptive section headings, but those are just examples (I'm not sure I would hold up my style here as a model for anyone). This question has headings, but they are not very descriptive of your specific items. That's often fine, but the lack of conciseness below the headings is problematic: I find it hard to extract the salient information from your "what this aims to fix" section, for example.
Finally, it includes information which, while relevant, doesn't add much to the question (in my view): the citations to a Reddit post are evidence that at least some other people feel as you do, but that adds nothing you would not have if you replaced it with a single line like "I want more incentive to take more levels in the Ranger class". If, in your campaign, you are intending to take a level of Rogue, that's all well and good, but it's harder for me to see the significance of that in evaluating a homebrewed Ranger class feature. Are you intending builds that take this homebrewed feature to do the same, meaning that answerers should assume multiclassing (into Rogue, or anything else) when considering the feature itself?
An issue closely related to the above is that it's harder to extract relevant information from the question because of its length, conversational extra information and exposition, and the relative lack of clear organization highlighting the most relevant details. I found it difficult to sift information about your issue, proposed solution, and stated goals/concerns from the rest of the text. A question that is harder to grasp and takes more effort to properly answer is a question that will attract fewer answers.
Specific recommendations for this question
The sections above are more general, but I will suggest a few items for this particular question. The overall thrust of these suggestions are to make the question more concise while also highlighting the most important and useful elements. These are my personal opinions on improvements, so please don't give them more weight than they deserve:
- Consider changing the name of the homebrewed feature in some way so
that it isn't the same as an existing feature. I found this confusing
when tracking changes. Even something like Improved Hunter's Mark
would help make it clear when we're discussing the original spell or
the proposed feature
- Remove irrelevant points, especially in the beginning. A feature you
find unsatisfactory, and intend to change, having a perceived synergy
with Feats Rangers may or may not take is not important to evaluating
the new version of the feature
- Cut the Reddit citations entirely. That you have a specific goal for
your homebrewed changes is enough reason to include that goal
- Remove the changelog section or remove the quoted prose describing
the proposed feature. They are redundant and double the length of
- The longer a question is, the more it tends to benefit from having
more sections, each relatively short and focused. The current
headings, and content beneath them, are not convenient for readers to
navigate. I consider this to be the highest-impact change you could
introduce to the question
- Providing a succinct summary of a section can be helpful, especially
if that section is long or contains lots of asides or conditional
cases. If you do offer a summary, it needs to actually summarize the
information it addresses: something like tl;dr: here is the
changelog is a heading, not a summary-- it contains no information
itself, but indicates where information might be found
- Your general attitudes on the relevant topics are clear, but your
specific problems, goals, and methods are harder to tease out. As
best I can tell, it seems that your main goal in revising Favored
Foe is to provide incentives to take more levels in Ranger, but
connections to that goal (or another) are hard to find in the
How I might write this question
I'm hesitant to make sweeping edits to others' questions, especially if I'm not highly confident that I understand all the nuances. But as an example of how I might try to apply these suggestions, the question may look something like this:
Mid- and high-level Ranger play seems underwhelming, and the Favored Foe feature from TCoE seems to continue that
Favored Foe seems generally worse than Hunter's Mark to me: it doesn't offer much that Hunter's Mark lacks until the level 20 feature Foe Slayer. Most games don't reach that level, and even when they do Rangers will spend a lot more play time with Favored Foe lacking that enhancement than they will with it. I'd like to revise the feature to make it more useful, and to encourage taking more levels in Ranger by providing more options for mid- and high-level play as a Ranger.
Here is my proposed homebrew feature:
Improved Hunter's Mark
1st-level ranger feature, which replaces the Favored Enemy feature and works with the Foe Slayer feature. Furthermore, Hunter's Mark is removed from your spell list.
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 hour or until you lose your concentration (as if you were concentrating on a spell). Until your concentration ends, you deal an extra 1d4 damage to the target whenever you hit it with an attack, and you have advantage on any Wisdom (Perception) or Wisdom (Survival) check you make to find it.
You can use this feature to mark a favored enemy a number of times equal to your proficiency bonus, and you regain all expended uses when you finish a short or long rest. This feature's extra damage increases when you reach certain levels in this class: to 1d6 at 6th level and to 1d8 at 14th level. Furthermore, once you have reached 11th level in this class, this feature no longer requires concentration.
What I am trying to fix with this homebrewed feature
Play is largely unchanged up to level 11, I think. It's a bit less versatile than the PHB version of Hunter's Mark since it can't be moved when a target reaches 0 hp, but frees up spell slots as it's now a uses-per-rest feature. It otherwise has a lot of the same tradeoffs as Hunter's Mark.
From level 11 and beyond, I think that removing the Concentration piece of the feature allows for more variety by keeping the benefit of extra damage while also allowing free access to other spells, especially those that require Concentration. It also enhances subclass features gained at level 11. So in all it represents a significant increase in power for the Ranger, but I think that is suitable for entering a higher tier of play.
My main worry is that removing the Concentration requirement is overpowered relative to other martial classes. I think it might be fine as it seems similar to the Paladin's Improved Divine Smite feature, which is a direct damage buff and also becomes available at level 11.
Overall, does my proposed Improved Hunter's Mark Ranger class feature make Rangers overpowered relative to other martial classes at level 11 or higher?