Larian Studios Forums Baldur's Gate III Baldur's Gate III - Build Discussion Why are Ranger's rated so poorly?

When we say 'martials', do we mean 'fighters'? Because otherwise, I include Rangers, Monks and Paladins among Martial Classes.

Anyway. So the discussion comes to 'fighter vs ranger'

Well. The Fighter is easier the play, no doubt about that. Still, for personal preference I prefer the ranger as an archer. And yes, I multi that into Assassin, but that argument will be made for a Fighter, too. I'd take six levels of fighter for the feat instead of five of ranger, but even still. I can make Gloomstalker/Assassins clear out entire maps without being spotted once. On a straight Gloomer that would take way longer, but it's easier done with one than it would be with a fighter, due to all the spells and extras you get. Because of all the skills the ranger gets, he becomes a better scout, finding traps and treasure alike. For a full 12 level class, a fighter is the better fighter, but the ranger is a better ranger.

Having said all this, my *favorite* Archer build, is in fact:

Gloom 3 / Assassin 3 / Battlemaster 6. Still get two feats, and all the best things from all the classes. I get the crits from assassin, sneak attack and the bonus action run/hide from rogue, the extra opening attack from Gloom, the invis from Gloom, fighting style twice, extra attack from fighter and the push/trip from Battlemaster. I always pick Riposte as a third, but an archer doesn't need it, so Rally might work here. Well. There you have it. ON top of all this, I get Ranger spellcasting, so Speak with Animals, Ensaring Strike, Hunter's Mark, Longstrider. All really good stuff to have when you need it. Best Archer ever.

Just, for giggles. Let's play a little Mathfinder.

There's no one else in the party. It's just me, the archer. I hide, I shoot an enemy with 18 Dex on a normal Longbow with normal arrows. That's 1d8 + 4 + 2D6 Sneak. [7-18]

I'm an assassin, so now I get that Action back. The enemy is now suprised.

My turn again, I cast hunter's mark as a bonus Action.

I shoot him again, this time for 1D8 + 4+ 2D6 Sneak + 1D6 Hunter's Mark. [8-24] AUTO CRIT, so 2D8 + 4 + 5D6 = 12-50
I shoot him again, this time for 1D8 + 4 + 1D6 Hunter's Mark. [7-18] AUTO CRIT, so 2D8 + 4 + 1D6 = 5-26
I shoot him again, this time for 1D8 + 4 + 1D6 Hunter's Mark. [7-18] AUTO CRIT, so 2D8 +4 + 1D6 = 5-26

7-18 + 12-15 + 5-26 + 5-26 =
29 - 94 in the opening round.

A 12 level pure Gloom would have done 1 times 1D8+4 and Twice at 1D8+4+1d6
So, Gloom total at 2-12 + 7-18 +7-18 =
16 - 48 in the opening round
But only Twice at 1D8+4+1d6 in consecutive rounds, which isn't all that great.

A 12 level Battlemaster would have done 3 times 1D8+4, but would have done that consecutively for the following rounds.
12-36 per round.

But, He too, can do the first round really well, because of Action Surge. So that doubles it for that round.
24-72, which is also quite respectable.

For more giggles. Let's take a pure assassin, same scenario.

Hide, shoot an unsuspecting enemy, still using longbows; our assassin is an elf, let's say.
1D8+ 4 + 10D6 Sneak = 11 - 72 Opening,
2D8 + 4 + 20D6 Sneak Autocrit First round = 26 -140

Makes for 37 - 232 in the first round, and 11 - 72 on consecutive rounds.

That is AWESOME, but much more risk/reward here. Miss, or don't have the Sneak Advantage and it's absolutely zero. Also note that the Sneak Attack will only proc once per round, so hasted this Assassin will only do an additional 1D8+4, which is moot at level 12.

Just for some quick context on how busted Sharpshooter is, a 12 Rogue (Thief) with dual hand crossbows:

1d6+4+10+6d6 for the first hit, 21-56 damage
1d6+4+10 for the 2nd and 3rd hit, 15-21 damage
51-98 damage (75 average or close enough)

Does that round after round, every round.

You mean Crossbow Expert, but yes, and you still get the 3 attacks per round a fighter would! Also Three feats, so get your dex up to 20, add Sharpshooter so never disadvantage from high ground...
The only thing I miss here, is that you never get to pick an archery fighting style to offset your -5 to attack. You shot very fast, but oftentimes miss, as well. SO by that rationale, I'd much rather do a 6 Fighter [three feats, 2APR, fighting style] 6 Thief [2 Bonus Actions]

That way you have *four* shots a round, +2 to attack from fighting style and still get 3D6 from Sneak damage.

Either way, thief is the only class that consistently gets 3 Attacks in at Level 3, although a Monk technically attacks three times using one mainhand and a Flurry of Blows. By that token, a Monk 8 / Thief 4 gets the most attacks per round unbuffed; two mainhand, four barehand - that's six. A fighter 11 can do that once per short rest, a thief monk can do it consistenly at level eight.

BUt. While this is all fun. Nothing beats the Water/Lightning combos possible with this, or the allmighty barrelmancer.

Nah I mean Sharpshooter, Crossbow Expert sadly does just about nothing in this game. Sharpshooter is the one that grants +10 damage for -5 attack. You get bonus action attacks while dual wielding crossbows for free as all classes.

Hunter also gets 3 attacks at level 3, whether from the gloom ambush (only in the first round), horde breaker (as long as two enemies are adjacent), or your beast companion (always but harder to pump up damage on it). Also just fwiw I’ve often seen monk builds called “consistent” but it’s really like 4 rounds per short rest, some builds I’ve seen even less, they often gloss over how fast you burn through Ki at 2 points per round on Flurry off Blows.

But yeah, that’s not even close to optimized from a damage perspective, of course, just a demo in that an unpolished thief builds with Sharpshooter destroys the damage output of those without. In practice I’ve found with enough bonuses and high enough dex the miss chance isn’t a problem, especially if you’re always working to grant advantage, which you should be anyway.

If I wanted to grab the extra attack for that build (giving up evasion, at will invisibility, a feat and especially reliable talent is a big ask, but it is more damage output if that’s what you’re focused on) I’d go Ranger over Fighter, get some spells in the mix and either some of the invisibility power with Gloom or a companion, cap at 5 there to retain evasion. Imho either of those would be stronger builds and more fun to play than basically just action surge.

Oh yeah, I'm seeing things double now.

Yeah, still. I'm getting good now, and know what to expect, and I already figured out that one-trick-ponies get real boring real fast. I actually enjoy it way more to infiltrate a base, do the objective and sneak out without fighting anyone. I enjoy it more to try out weird spells like meow with a cat / lock door on half the group, that sort of thing - instead of just blasting everything with water and lightning and knowing it will work regardless.

BUt that's exactly what's fun about this game, you can do *all of that*. Skydive an enlarged Owlbear if you want. Set up bombs and tear down structures, throw goblins at more goblins, command the enemy to drop weapons - it's all good. Aggro all the Gobbos in the base, sneak to a safe place and summon three Ogres, and throw in a Spectator Beholder for good measure. Set the spiders free and watch the Battle of the Five Armies.

You know whats a better optimized version 5 gloomstalker / 4 Assassin or Thief (depends if you want to ambush crit every first round or with consistent bonus action every other turn)/ then battlemaster/champion (depends if u want maneuvers or improve crit that can stack)

You still get 2 feats but with 5 gloomstalker you get lvl 2 spells and a misty step. Also the reason 4 rogue over 3 fighter is your sneak attack gets a small boost in dmg 1~2.

Currently level 10... Ranger 5 (Gloomstalker) / Fighter 2 / Rogue 3
Works really nicely for me. Lots of rd1 damage with dual wielding finesse swords (Dex Build)

Ranger in bg3 is nothing like tabletop ranger, lol.

Took a quik look with respeccing at lvl8 or so for shits and giggles and its not even remotely the same.

For all the 'fighters make better archers' things were true for the tabletop. Because fighters had the same options that a ranger did and better options in some cases. Like how some battlemaster moves also work on ranged attacks. Fighters get more ASI's or feats as well so if your build relies on feats a fighter gets there faster as well.

That said. Gloomstalker rangers have alot going for them. If you set yourself up in an area of darkness all your ranged shots have advantage. Because people cant see you, but you can see them. You effectivly have greater invisibility in that case. Adding sneak attack from a rogue to this or shadowmonk for teleporting shenanigans add to the class very nicely.

As for bg3 ranger builds id have to sit down once I reach lvl 12 to take at all the things about the class that they changed. As is, its kinda moot to make a comparison because bg3 ranger and tabletop ranger are nothing alike.

That's a single subspec of ranger, and built around multiclass and being sneaked far out. Won't be fun when dialogue selection after a battle is proximity based either. Many people roll ranger with the idea of animal companions and being a forest warden, not a sniper assassin archetype, and on that front the class is pretty weak. I mean, any martial/weapon based class multiclassed to rogue is bound to be strong because of the extra attack that rogue should not be granting for such little multiclass investment.

A core class should be good and optimal, without requiring multiclass to a stronger class category like rogues for some martials and paladin for warlock to make the core class work.

Have to agree with Zenith.

I did a Ranger hireling and messed around with multiclassing and subclass changes and fact is you get many fewer chances to set up your dark spaces and stealth situations or it's just too much trouble to make work, than if you just charge ahead with straight melee cuz so many combats aren't telegraphed. Not that you can't have fun with Ranger or RP with it, but it's not for me.

Well heres the thing. You dont NEED to. Its just that the combo adds alot of (early combat) hitting power.

I havent checked the other ranger trees yet so cant comment on them but ranger is still a marshall class with multi attack, half casting and the new system they implemebted gives you alot of custonisation options.

Its tons better then the phb version and im all for it ^_^

Honestly the ranger spell choices feel lame and the lack of a powerful companion by default also further ruins the ranger idea/theme.
The Beastmaster companions feel very basic and boring.
The other two ranger subclasses, while not bad, feel more like a fighter/rogue... very few "ranger" vibes there.

Also its like the whole "spell casting" part of the ranger has no notable synergy with the rest of the class/subclasses.
Most of the useful Ranger spells do not feel like spells at all but rather like basic physical abilities, like mark a target or shoot a fancy arrow.

Compare Rangers to Paladins whose spells are very thematic and cool looking, plus a lot more important to their performance.
Even the Monk subclass that has "spells" feels much more coherently designed than the Ranger with their spellcasting.

beast master is good

As your question never was answered, here is why: For damage you need to hit, and the Battlemaster Fighter has better means to achieve hits when using Sharpshooter. Simple as that.

I like Ranger for the extra 2-3 skill Proficiencies. The game is easy enough as not to require meta-optimisation of chars.

I recently did Minsc as a full level 12 Ranger, hunter, and the volley stuff is amazing. Love it.

IMO Minsc should had been recast as Barbarian. With urges. Silly urges.
I'm unhappy with Jaheira being a straight Druid. She should be Fighter 4/Druid 4. Akshually IMO the best class for her would be RANGER, with some Druid weirdness to give her a Wild Shape. Thinking about it, Oath of Ancients/Druid also works for her very nicely. IMO. In those Evul! racist old times Half-Elves could not be Paladins.
And don't get me going on the Panther Wild Shape. She no pussy! She Momma Bear!!!!!1

I agree that Minsc should lean more into barbarian, but I thought I'd try him out as a full ranger in my latest run. Typically, I don't go that way.

I just happened to find the volley stuff especially effective.

And yeah, I tend to split Jaheira between fighter and land druid. I wouldn't mind finding a new build for her, though. Nothing I've done with her feels right to me yet.

At least for me personally, I'd probably never play full ranger. Didnt like there homebrew beginner stuff (which seems like over used features from other classes) and its just spammed into other levels.

Like, it was creative at level one but when those same choices pop up at 6 and 10. You kind of wonder how much thought went into it.

At level 8 you get land stride: difficult terrain and at 10 hide in plain sight, both are just ok.

Well I cant really say too much about the thread topic. I just dont play Ranger, its one of the classes that dont appeal to me.

---

But I can make the very global observation that Rangers are a mix of Warrior, some Rogue, some Druid, and some uniquely Ranger-y stuff. So its not really that surprising that a Ranger cannot have the battle power of a pure Fighter, or for that matter Barbarian, to a degree also Paladin. Even Paladins are more focused into warrior than Ranger, since the later also has stealth and the wilderness theme, on topc of the druidic magic, while Paladin really just mixes combat and some clerical magic (and I guess Turn Undead but I wouldnt say thats in any way compareable to having a general feature like Stealth).

---

That said, IMHO D&D5 Fighter is hopelessly overpowered anyway. If you complain another class is not as good, well, thats unsurprising. For comparison:

In AD&D, all that Fighter had over Ranger and Paladin was that they leveled faster and could put 5 points into a weapon, while the later two could only put 2 points into a weapon. And if a Fighter would put 5 points into a weapon, well they would gain another 1/2 attack. Fighter, Ranger and Paladin all gained an extra 1/2 attack on level 7 and 13, and gained an extra 1/2 attack for 2 points in a weapon. So the difference was in the end 3 attacks for a Fighter with 5 points into a weapon, against 2 1/2 attacks from Ranger or Paladin. Another price Fighter had to pay was less weapon type choices than the later, since they wouldnt get more weapon skillpoints (4 at level 1, +1 every 3 levels).

In D&D3, warrior classes would get up to 4 attacks on level 20, priests and tricksters would gain 3 at level 20, and the arcane spellcasters would gain 2 at level 20. Fighters would simply get more feats, and would get a special feat only available to them for additional weapon damage.

But now in D&D5 everyone gets one attack per round (now called turn), Warriors (and certain other classes) gain a second attack on level 5, but Fighters gain a third attack on level 11 and would also get a fourth on level 17 if Larian would have implemented that level in BG3. Massive advantage for Fighters and totally overpowered, and the situation is much worse than in AD&D and D&D3.

D&D5 has many elegant solutions, but giving Fighters such an extreme advantage really wasnt one of them.

---

About the sidetopic that developed in this thread, I prefer Minsc as Barbarian, and Jaheira as pure Druid.

Lets face it, if Barbarian would have been initially available when the original Baldur's Gate came out, Minsc would have been made a Barbarian. Barbarian was first available in the second game though.

And I'm sorry, but D&D5 just offers absolutely nothing that can be actually compared to an AD&D Fighter/Druid; the later had a TON of different properties over a pure AD&D Druid. Making Jaheira Fighter(n)/Druid(m) just doesnt work at all. To even get the second attack you'd have to make her a level 5 Fighter, after which her Druid would be riddiculously mediocre. She also wouldnt get heavy armor unless you would start her as Fighter, which is also not a good idea.

So at most I'd give Jaheira a single level of Cleric (Life, Tempest or War Domain) so she can wear heavy armor (and, for Tempest or War, use any weapon) and some other extras (which dont really fit Jaheira but whatever). As Druid subclass it seems popular to pick Circle of Moon and shapeshift a lot with her, which actually gives her a quite decent amount of combat and tanking ability.

For the record I had big fun with Jaheira as Shaman (in the EEs) or as human Ranger(n)/Cleric (in the original games; in the EEs a Ranger/Cleric no longer gets the highlevel Druid spells as well). Going human Fighter(n)/Druid or Shapeshifter (Druid subclass) would also be interesting options for her. So maybe I'm just more open to the idea to change her around in the first place.

---