Larian Banner: Baldur's Gate Patch 9
Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Page 1 of 2 1 2
Joined: Mar 2021
Z
stranger
OP Offline
stranger
Z
Joined: Mar 2021
So I have been wondering if the hunter's mark and colossus slayer conflict has been resolved yet? I know for the most part only 1 will activate normally. But as of the last patch I saw that colossus slayer is working properly. However will it work with hunter's mark now? Thanks!

Joined: Sep 2017
P
apprentice
Offline
apprentice
P
Joined: Sep 2017
I believe that they do not stack. Nor are they supposed too in "rules as written". Also colossus slayer now procs the way it is supposed to.

Last edited by Pharaun159; 01/03/21 03:24 PM. Reason: forgot something
Joined: Sep 2017
Location: Norway
S
addict
Offline
addict
S
Joined: Sep 2017
Location: Norway
Originally Posted by Pharaun159
I believe that they do not stack. Nor are they supposed too in "rules as written". Also colossus slayer now procs the way it is supposed to.

They totally should stack.

Joined: Sep 2017
P
apprentice
Offline
apprentice
P
Joined: Sep 2017
You are correct. My mistake. I was thinking about the rule that makes it only work once per turn. Been awhile since i played a ranger.

Joined: Sep 2017
Location: Norway
S
addict
Offline
addict
S
Joined: Sep 2017
Location: Norway
Originally Posted by Pharaun159
You are correct. My mistake. I was thinking about the rule that makes it only work once per turn. Been awhile since i played a ranger.

Me too. The ranger was my first class ever. Not happy with Larian's take on Rangers though.

Joined: Sep 2017
P
apprentice
Offline
apprentice
P
Joined: Sep 2017
Originally Posted by Seraphael
Originally Posted by Pharaun159
You are correct. My mistake. I was thinking about the rule that makes it only work once per turn. Been awhile since i played a ranger.

Me too. The ranger was my first class ever. Not happy with Larian's take on Rangers though.
Really? Why so?

Joined: Feb 2021
JoB Offline
Banned
Offline
Banned
Joined: Feb 2021
Originally Posted by Pharaun159
I believe that they do not stack. Nor are they supposed too in "rules as written". Also colossus slayer now procs the way it is supposed to.
Is it not supposed to work with my offhand attack? I notice it's not working with my offhand weapon.

The whole reason I took it was because I thought it would work with both weapons while two weapon fighting. Was I wrong? It sounds like I was wrong.

Joined: Sep 2017
P
apprentice
Offline
apprentice
P
Joined: Sep 2017
Originally Posted by JoB
Originally Posted by Pharaun159
I believe that they do not stack. Nor are they supposed too in "rules as written". Also colossus slayer now procs the way it is supposed to.
Is it not supposed to work with my offhand attack? I notice it's not working with my offhand weapon.

The whole reason I took it was because I thought it would work with both weapons while two weapon fighting. Was I wrong? It sounds like I was wrong.
No its not supposed to. Only procs once per turn.

Joined: Feb 2021
enthusiast
Offline
enthusiast
Joined: Feb 2021
I *think* they fixed both but only announced the Colossus change, but I retired my Ranger playthrough to start a new Rogue one so I'm not 100% certain. I just recall looking in a log and thinking I had finally gotten Colossus, Hunter's and Duelling to all trigger for once. I think now they are all working as intended, but each can only be triggered on your Action attack once per round.

Joined: Sep 2017
Location: Norway
S
addict
Offline
addict
S
Joined: Sep 2017
Location: Norway
Originally Posted by Pharaun159
Originally Posted by Seraphael
Originally Posted by Pharaun159
You are correct. My mistake. I was thinking about the rule that makes it only work once per turn. Been awhile since i played a ranger.

Me too. The ranger was my first class ever. Not happy with Larian's take on Rangers though.
Really? Why so?

From another post in suggestions:

If you looked beyond martial classes in particular being buffed excessively by tactical positioning (height/flanking), you might have realized Rangers aren't specifically good. Martial classes are generally strong (as are casters by unlimited resting).

FAVORED ENEMY.

* Bounty Hunter: Theives Cant never will work/Restrain ability not working. Likely meant to provide a slight bonus to the Ensnaring Strike (a pretty weak concentration spell that conflicts with Hunter's Mark). Investigation skill is ok IF your ranger is your party's lead/face, otherwise useless. Good/unique thematically.

* Keeper of the Veil: Protection from Good/Evil conflicts with Hunter's Mark and with the main role of Rangers (damage). The spell is largely made useless by height advantage. Arcana skill is ok IF your ranger is your party's lead/face, otherwise useless. Thematically too identical with Sanctified Stalker.

* Mage Breaker: Useless True Strike cantrip. Advantage does not stack and is virtually guaranteed by flanking/height. Conflicts with Hunter's Mark. Arcana skill is ok IF your ranger is your party's lead/face, otherwise useless. Thematically good/unique. Only one who sounds like it fits a "favored enemy" (perhaps feature would have been more aptly called "path".

* Ranger Knight: The clearly best and only "correct" choice. Getting proficiency in heavy armor is MUCH better than near useless (or worse) cantrips. Restricted to a Strength-build (rangers appeal thematically by far more to ranged combat), but choice made even better by how powerful/overpowered Jump and Shove (both reliant on str) is in the game. History skill is ok IF your ranger is your party's lead/face, otherwise useless. Thematically neutral, unique - but counter to what is the common perception of what a ranger is. Balance issue: Too powerful relative to the other choices and this limits real choices for many.

* Sanctified Stalker: Sacred Flame cantrip is WORSE than useless, one of the main reasons Shadowheart sucked so badly and much worse on a martial class. Religion is ok IF your ranger is your party's lead/face, otherwise useless. Thematically BAD, what does the flashy Sacred Flame and book knowledge have thematically with stalking/stealth? Nothing. Besides being much too similar to Keeper of the Veil.


NATURAL EXPLORER.

* Beast Tamer: Find Familiar. Mostly flavor. Micromanagement heavy for very little use. Weak to useless depending upon party.

* Urban Tracker: Open locks. Pretty decent, a four member party needs alternatives to having a dedicated rogue. The "correct" choice given it is the only that provides party composition versatility. Still mostly meh.

* Wasteland Wanderer: Cold: Setting dependent. Likely pretty rare. Ranged rangers much less targeted and will see little use.

* Wasteland Wanderer: Fire: Setting dependent. Fire is uncommon. More common if enemy AI get improved to use weapon dipping or a more immersive equivalent. Ranged rangers much less targeted and will see little use.

* Wasteland Wanderer: Poison: Setting dependent. Uncommon to rare. Ranged rangers much less targeted and will see little use.


Let's compare with the Revised Ranger/Unearthed Arcana (that likely is on the strong side):

Favored Enemy: +2 dmg vs. enemy type of choice: Beast, fey, humanoid, monstrosities, or undead. Some largely flavor abilities.
Natural Explorer: Ignore difficult terrain, advantage on initiative rolls, advantage on attacks vs. enemies that haven't acted yet. Added flavor abilities.

My main observations:

1. Larian's homebrew is, outside the tactical positioning advantage on attack rolls that ALL classes benefit from (martial most of course), not a needed buff to Rangers in general. It's merely a BG3 adaptation of the universally reviled PHB Ranger.
2. There's an ENORMOUS discrepancy between what WotC considers appropriate buffs and what Larian did.
3. Larian's homebrew is needlessly specific and complex. Larian removes PHB "trap choices" and goes out of their way to introduces their own trap choices. Critical miss by design team! Consider Larian's Hunter Ranger. Favored Enemies: 5 choices. Natural Explorer: 5 choices. Hunter subclass: 3 choices. Unlucky 13 choices by level 3 (then add all the normal choices for Rangers). These are all avenues where especially players without metaknowledge is very likely to regret their choices without having any recourse.

Suggestions:

1. Use (weakened form) of Revised Ranger/WotC's unofficial material. Considerably more elegant and generalized changes than Larian's needlessly complex and mostly useless homebrew.
2. Address a very common complaint, virtually guaranteed and over-incentivized flanking/height bonuses that causes a HOST of balancing issues that in turn will require loads of needless and unpopular homebrew. Reduce to a small flat bonus would be enough to incentivize tactical positioning (which is clever design).

Joined: Sep 2017
P
apprentice
Offline
apprentice
P
Joined: Sep 2017
Originally Posted by Seraphael
Originally Posted by Pharaun159
Originally Posted by Seraphael
Originally Posted by Pharaun159
You are correct. My mistake. I was thinking about the rule that makes it only work once per turn. Been awhile since i played a ranger.

Me too. The ranger was my first class ever. Not happy with Larian's take on Rangers though.
Really? Why so?

From another post in suggestions:

If you looked beyond martial classes in particular being buffed excessively by tactical positioning (height/flanking), you might have realized Rangers aren't specifically good. Martial classes are generally strong (as are casters by unlimited resting).

FAVORED ENEMY.

* Bounty Hunter: Theives Cant never will work/Restrain ability not working. Likely meant to provide a slight bonus to the Ensnaring Strike (a pretty weak concentration spell that conflicts with Hunter's Mark). Investigation skill is ok IF your ranger is your party's lead/face, otherwise useless. Good/unique thematically.

* Keeper of the Veil: Protection from Good/Evil conflicts with Hunter's Mark and with the main role of Rangers (damage). The spell is largely made useless by height advantage. Arcana skill is ok IF your ranger is your party's lead/face, otherwise useless. Thematically too identical with Sanctified Stalker.

* Mage Breaker: Useless True Strike cantrip. Advantage does not stack and is virtually guaranteed by flanking/height. Conflicts with Hunter's Mark. Arcana skill is ok IF your ranger is your party's lead/face, otherwise useless. Thematically good/unique. Only one who sounds like it fits a "favored enemy" (perhaps feature would have been more aptly called "path".

* Ranger Knight: The clearly best and only "correct" choice. Getting proficiency in heavy armor is MUCH better than near useless (or worse) cantrips. Restricted to a Strength-build (rangers appeal thematically by far more to ranged combat), but choice made even better by how powerful/overpowered Jump and Shove (both reliant on str) is in the game. History skill is ok IF your ranger is your party's lead/face, otherwise useless. Thematically neutral, unique - but counter to what is the common perception of what a ranger is. Balance issue: Too powerful relative to the other choices and this limits real choices for many.

* Sanctified Stalker: Sacred Flame cantrip is WORSE than useless, one of the main reasons Shadowheart sucked so badly and much worse on a martial class. Religion is ok IF your ranger is your party's lead/face, otherwise useless. Thematically BAD, what does the flashy Sacred Flame and book knowledge have thematically with stalking/stealth? Nothing. Besides being much too similar to Keeper of the Veil.


NATURAL EXPLORER.

* Beast Tamer: Find Familiar. Mostly flavor. Micromanagement heavy for very little use. Weak to useless depending upon party.

* Urban Tracker: Open locks. Pretty decent, a four member party needs alternatives to having a dedicated rogue. The "correct" choice given it is the only that provides party composition versatility. Still mostly meh.

* Wasteland Wanderer: Cold: Setting dependent. Likely pretty rare. Ranged rangers much less targeted and will see little use.

* Wasteland Wanderer: Fire: Setting dependent. Fire is uncommon. More common if enemy AI get improved to use weapon dipping or a more immersive equivalent. Ranged rangers much less targeted and will see little use.

* Wasteland Wanderer: Poison: Setting dependent. Uncommon to rare. Ranged rangers much less targeted and will see little use.


Let's compare with the Revised Ranger/Unearthed Arcana (that likely is on the strong side):

Favored Enemy: +2 dmg vs. enemy type of choice: Beast, fey, humanoid, monstrosities, or undead. Some largely flavor abilities.
Natural Explorer: Ignore difficult terrain, advantage on initiative rolls, advantage on attacks vs. enemies that haven't acted yet. Added flavor abilities.

My main observations:

1. Larian's homebrew is, outside the tactical positioning advantage on attack rolls that ALL classes benefit from (martial most of course), not a needed buff to Rangers in general. It's merely a BG3 adaptation of the universally reviled PHB Ranger.
2. There's an ENORMOUS discrepancy between what WotC considers appropriate buffs and what Larian did.
3. Larian's homebrew is needlessly specific and complex. Larian removes PHB "trap choices" and goes out of their way to introduces their own trap choices. Critical miss by design team! Consider Larian's Hunter Ranger. Favored Enemies: 5 choices. Natural Explorer: 5 choices. Hunter subclass: 3 choices. Unlucky 13 choices by level 3 (then add all the normal choices for Rangers). These are all avenues where especially players without metaknowledge is very likely to regret their choices without having any recourse.

Suggestions:

1. Use (weakened form) of Revised Ranger/WotC's unofficial material. Considerably more elegant and generalized changes than Larian's needlessly complex and mostly useless homebrew.
2. Address a very common complaint, virtually guaranteed and over-incentivized flanking/height bonuses that causes a HOST of balancing issues that in turn will require loads of needless and unpopular homebrew. Reduce to a small flat bonus would be enough to incentivize tactical positioning (which is clever design).

you make a good case that they trivialize some core class features. yet somehow rangers are still one of the highest dps classes in the currect meta. I agree with alot that you say, but it seems unlikely that they will change it much

Joined: Sep 2017
Location: Norway
S
addict
Offline
addict
S
Joined: Sep 2017
Location: Norway
Originally Posted by Pharaun159
you make a good case that they trivialize some core class features. yet somehow rangers are still one of the highest dps classes in the currect meta. I agree with alot that you say, but it seems unlikely that they will change it much

Is that really true though...or more of a truism because it's easy to fulfill the damage potential as a Ranger?

I doubt this is really true in a setting where all full-casters can cast their best spells at every encounter (unlimited rest). Where "martial competitors" like the Battlemaster Fighter (considered in D&D Raw as a better option than Ranger both in melee and in range), has been more significantly buffed (height/flanking advantage, unlimited sleep for unlimited maneuvers, surge every battle (unlimited rest), more benefitting from jump/disengage and shove who is based in strength).

Theoretically (and I'm convinced in proper testing as well), BG3 Rangers should come out well further behind than even in D&D raw. ESPECIALLY if actually using the abilities Larian "buffed" them with ironically. This issue will be more noticeable as Rangers gain levels given they start out relatively strong, but fade quickly relative to just about every other class. Larian's homebrew does nothing to prevent this either. Then finally consider damage is pretty much all (most) Rangers bring, while Fighters generally are more versatile and can bring damage/burst damage and tanking, while casters bring damage, control and support (even tanking considering you can be buffed to the gills at nearly every encounter given unlimited rest).

Last edited by Seraphael; 02/03/21 04:22 PM.
Joined: Feb 2021
P
addict
Offline
addict
P
Joined: Feb 2021
Originally Posted by Seraphael
Originally Posted by Pharaun159
You are correct. My mistake. I was thinking about the rule that makes it only work once per turn. Been awhile since i played a ranger.

Me too. The ranger was my first class ever. Not happy with Larian's take on Rangers though.

I have to agree. My first playthrough was with a ranger as well, and I really found it lacking. I am going to try it again, and rather than focus on range, I am going to try duel wield, but compared against the warrior, warlock and rogue, well the ranger really seemed kind of wimpy.

Joined: Jan 2021
addict
Offline
addict
Joined: Jan 2021
Originally Posted by Seraphael
Theoretically BG3 Rangers should come out further behind than even in D&D raw. ESPECIALLY if actually using the abilities Larian "buffed" them with ironically. This issue will be more noticeable as Rangers gain levels given they start out relatively strong, but fade quickly relative to just about every other class. Larian's homebrew does nothing to prevent this either. Then finally consider damage is pretty much all (most) Rangers bring, while Fighters generally are more versatile and can bring damage/burst damage and tanking, while casters bring damage, control and support (even tanking considering you can be buffed to the gills at nearly every encounter given unlimited rest). Besides, I believe Rangers tend to start relatively strong but fade quickly relative to just about every other class and Larian's homebrew does nothing to prevent this.
I'm wondering if ranger will be buffed at level 5, 6, etc. Hunter's Mark has always made ranger strong levels 1-4.
(In 5e) After level 5, ranger starts fading into the background for the group.

TBH I wish they had gone the route of buffing dex ranger instead of str ranger.
Ranger in 5e has always had the issue of being a quasi fighter/rogue/druid and they become dependent on hunter's mark similar to Warlock and Eldritch Blast.
It'd be good to use warlock as an example of how to fix ranger instead of incentivizing str ranger.

Joined: Sep 2017
Location: Norway
S
addict
Offline
addict
S
Joined: Sep 2017
Location: Norway
Originally Posted by DragonSnooz
TBH I wish they had gone the route of buffing dex ranger instead of str ranger.
Ranger in 5e has always had the issue of being a quasi fighter/rogue/druid and they become dependent on hunter's mark similar to Warlock and Eldritch Blast.
It'd be good to use warlock as an example of how to fix ranger instead of incentivizing str ranger.

Melee is a very crowded field without incentivizing Rangers who are archetypically archers. Almost all martial and half-casters are either only melee or mostly melee and both Druids and Clerics are best in melee as well. I would prefer to have both options just as viable, but Larian kind of made that choice for Rangers by incentivizing strength/melee with the best "Favored Enemy" on top of their strong incentivization of melee through strength-based Jump and Shove, the latter purely a (strong) buff for melee.

BG3 Ranger has some serious issues and I'm hoping Larian is willing to consider the feedback.

Joined: Feb 2021
enthusiast
Offline
enthusiast
Joined: Feb 2021
Originally Posted by Pharaun159
yet somehow rangers are still one of the highest dps classes in the currect meta.
I'm not experienced with 5e at all, but from playing BG3 I get the distinct impression that is mostly due to the level cap being low.

In any non-trivial fight, Hunter's Mark has HORRIBLE synergy with the rest of the class and will scale very poorly with level as it stands. Compare it to Sneak Attack which is trivial to set up, scales with level, doesn't require a Bonus Action, or Concentration, and can be switched at will between targets. Currently if you are a Bounty Hunter it stops you using Entangling Strike, if you're a Keeper of the Veil you can't use it with Protection From Evil & Good, if you're a Mage Breaker you can't use it with True Strike. That's on top of the fact you have Ranger as one of the only 2 classes with offhand damage bonus available, yet to get an offhand attack you give up applying Hunter's Mark, or hope you target something that fails to die for a full round, which is pretty rare. If you use it to try 1-shotting enemies from stealth you can't use it with Colossus Breaker. Its utility to the class is just so utterly atrocious as it stands.

IMO Hunter's Mark should be a class short rest mechanic like Action Surge, not require Concentration, and be reapplied as a Free Action. They could also make it apply to all Action attacks giving a second d6 at level 5.

I really want to play as a Ranger, but every playthrough I've started just feels so lacking compared to a Thief that brings more to the table in every possible sense except Armour Class...

Last edited by Elessaria666; 03/03/21 01:15 AM.
Joined: Nov 2020
enthusiast
Offline
enthusiast
Joined: Nov 2020
I'm currently running a Female Ranger knight and I'll have to admit that she's a full-on tank With two-handed weapons. She uses Hunter's mark and Jump both on pretty much every battle. I just battled the 3 ogres you have to fight to get the Amulet of intelligence and see wiped out two of them by herself. One of them had done some damage to him on the first turn on the next turn go a double critical which ended the fight. And I had only 5 hp left. Gale I just dumped him and replaced him with Wyl due to the fact that Gale is too squishy.

Does anyone know if they fixed the Feat for dual weapons where you get a +1 to AC?

Last edited by DragonMaster69; 03/03/21 01:31 PM.
Joined: Sep 2017
Z
journeyman
Offline
journeyman
Z
Joined: Sep 2017
I've been playing solo with a Ranger character, and you don't even need high stats to be really successful in combat, thanks to colossus slayer, and the combination of only one spell is all that necessary due to how the game is built. Fog Cloud. If you cast that spell, you can use your bonus action to stealth inside the cloud, and every turn, enemies can't target you. You can even step out of the cloud, make a ranged attack and step back into stealth, and you become unstoppable. This also works really well with Druid and Wizard btw.

Additionally, if your ranger sneaks up to a group of enemies and just casts fog cloud on himself and the enemies, you can just start swinging on all of them inside the cloud and never initiate combat, I was able to kill every enemy in the game and several targets never even started combat when I used fog cloud. This means even if they set up enemies with counters to the fog cloud spell, if combat is never initiated, they still can't do anything about it.

The only class I can't recommend to pick up this strategy is rogue arcane trickster, simply cause the fog cloud is a cloud of advantage/disadvantage, and having disadvantage for any reason disables sneak attack.

Last edited by Zaxtaj; 04/03/21 05:45 AM.
Joined: Jan 2021
addict
Offline
addict
Joined: Jan 2021
Okay, so essentially fog cloud is bugged to never initiate combat?

Joined: Sep 2017
Z
journeyman
Offline
journeyman
Z
Joined: Sep 2017
Originally Posted by DragonSnooz
Okay, so essentially fog cloud is bugged to never initiate combat?

Because it is an area that causes blindness, creatures that are blind automatically fail any check that requires sight, when you swing on a creature they make a perception check to spot you, so essentially it is working as intended, but it is very game-breaking.

Edit: Though if they had more intention to following 5e rules, in the errata they did fix fog cloud so that it only causes blindness to creatures trying to see through it, meaning they are only blind on their turn. If they used that rule instead it would fix a lot of the abuse around the spell.

Last edited by Zaxtaj; 04/03/21 03:14 PM.
Page 1 of 2 1 2

Moderated by  Dom_Larian, Freddo, vometia 

Link Copied to Clipboard
Powered by UBB.threads™ PHP Forum Software 7.7.5