Larian Studios Forums Baldur's Gate III Baldur's Gate III - Suggestions & Feedback New Favored Enemy Options are Too Weak

The extra proficiency is nice, but the side effect of each of these is borderline worthless:

Bounty Hunter: I don't know how useful thieves cant is yet, so no comment on this one. This one at least has some potential upside.
Keeper of the Veil: You gain protection from evil and good, a spell that is hardly ever making the cut for any class that gets a choice. Borderline worthless.
Mage breaker: you get True Strike, which is extremely weak right now given that it takes an action to give advantage, which you can easily get many other ways (backstab, highground, shadows, etc.). Completely worthless.
Ranger Knight: I'm not sure how heavy armor works in BG3, but I assume there is a STR requirement. As such this feature is Multiple Ability Dependent (MAD) since Rangers want to max DEX and WIS, and also get CON. With high DEX this ability is anti-synergy (diminishing returns on switching to heavy armor with high DEX vs medium armor). There's upside but it's weak.
Sanctified Stalker: Sacred Flame is almost never going to do more damage than a ranged bow attack as a ranger, especially after you hit level 5. Worthless.

So of the 5 options, 2 are unpickable imo, 1 is very very situational and therefore borderline worthless, 1 is MAD and anti-synergy (although not worthless), and 1 is unrankable because no idea what thieves' cant does in game.

It feels like picking a second character background. I don't think that's a terrible thing necessarily, but since it's presented as a class feature it feels like it should have some bigger impact than a background choice.

Prot from Evil and Good is very appealing, I've seen it make a person nigh-untochable by certain enemies. It's going to be less useful in this early game where we're facing a bunch of humanoids, but if we start seeing more aberrations (like mind flayers for instance) or undead and fiends then it will start being powerful. Hardly worthless.

I need to try True Strike to see if it has been improved from the paper version, but I keep hesitating to do so. I may try it out.

Strength based rangers are a thing, in Curse of Strahd I played a winged-tiefling monster slayer that mostly did weapon/shield and was prime tank for the party as well as off-healing here and there. (Healing Spirit and Cure Wounds) I liked the way it played though I imagine a lot of people would have played the concept more as a paladin, I liked the way the mechanics worked overall.

Sacred Flame again has use for a ranger that focuses more on melee than ranged, also, it supposedly ignores cover and such, so it might ignore some of the terrain disadvantages you may find yourself having.

They are much better than the paper version of Favored Enemy.

- Bounty Hunter has Investigation, which is cool. The bonus on Restrained is not in use now I think
SUGGESTIONS : bonus on Knock Out Action or non lethal damage OR maybe a small fun bonus on Hunter's Mark ? (eg. bonus on Concentration check, an extra Hunter's Mark [bonus spell])

- Protection from evil is not that bad : undead and devils have Disadvantage to hit you, which is a big deal. I believe the duration is as long as you do not lose Concentration (in BG3 Early Access I mean).
SUGGESTION: a +1 AC versus the same creatures would be fine.

- If True Strike does not start combat it is interesting (it is only a somatic spell : no sound), but I see your point. The good side is it is only a cantrip, so something to consider. It is worse in the TTRPG (30 feet and some DMs make it impossible to use), but it is probably not the most popular choice here either. EDIT: I retract myself: it is not useful even as a surprise/sneaky action.

- Ranger Knight seems to have support from players having fun making new builds, that is Strength-based Rangers.
SUGGESTION: to avoid new players screwing themselves over, Str 14 minimum should be a requirement for this one.

- Sacred Flame is really NOT good for a Ranger, terrible actually. Even with Shadowheart, Sacred Flame is rarely over 50% hit for a mediocre 1d8. Rangers always do more damage and much better chances of hitting.
SUGGESTION : what if the Sanctified could cause Radiant damage with her/his attacks ? (ex: arrow hits and does 10 Radiant instead of Piercing). Maybe not at will? (?)

Well, I think they are a lot better compared to what the PHB offers.

Plus you kind of missing the point of getting an extra proficiency, which at the moment means Ranger's can have as many proficiencies as a Rogue (3 from class + 1 from favourite enemy)

My view on them:

Bounty Hunter - fine as is, haven't tested the improved restrain feature. I assume it works with Ensnaring Strike.

Keeper of the Veil - good stuff, Protection from Evil and Good can come in handy at times, particularly in a setting that is heavy on abberations and fiends.

Mage Breaker - weak - would love something like the mage slayer feat - your attacks cause the target to make Concentrations saves or something. Trues Strike is pointless

Ranger Knight - good, allows you to play a strength based Ranger and dump Dex

Sanctified Stalker - weak, Sacred Flame will never out-class your attacks, plus you probably won't have Wisdom above 16. Perhaps replace it with some Cleric/Paladin utility spell?

That would actually be an interesting take, have a toggle to replace the attack damage with radiant.

Maybe part of it? The game seems to treat the Weapon dice and your Str/Dex mod as separate numbers, so maybe keep the weapon dice normal and replace the Str/Dex mod with radiant?

replacing Sacred Flame and True Strike would actually be very appealing.

True Strike is horrible on the paper game. There's only a couple of builds that raise it from being a terrible choice to being just sub-par.

i dont see how true strike no starting combat makes it any better since being sneaky already gives advantage on itself

however i do agree with OP about pretty much everything

as it stands with lv 4 being the max level, i like to call Rangers the "bad warlocks" since they play exactly the same (huntersmark into autos or hex into eldritchblast) but they dont gain hp from securing kills, their main attack do not shove targets for free and they do not have charisma for conversation as well as not having misty step to get free high ground

i find ranger extremely underwhelming as a whole

wake up in the moring use your 1 out of 2 spell per day to cast longstrider on yourself then use the remaining 1 spell slot to hunter's mark into auto attack reapply repeat zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

I liked the PoE and pathfinder:King rangers. If they can get closer to that id be happy

I have to agree with the other replies... All the options are better than the tabletop rules. You only get advantage on a few checks when it concerns your FE.
My first reaction to them all was "interesting way to implement this, I like".

I'm not sure how well Bounty Hunter will work because the few times I've tried knocking things unconscious, they either never wake up, or they wake up hostile and you wind up killing them anyways, so the whole "subdue" thing seems to be either broken or useless.

An extra proficiency in anything is not "worthless". It's a base 10% improvement in your chance to succeed that goes up as you level. Not overpowered, but not useless. And as it applies to all checks with that skill, I think it's a reasonable compromise to advantage but only when the skills concerns your FE.

I've been thinking of trying a Gith Knight Ranger. Obviously there _could_ be synergy issues, but if you go this route, you should dump DEX and go all-in on STR. You'll be melee focused with either a one or two handed STR weapon. If you're wearing heavy armor, you get no benefit (to your AC) from DEX anyways so having a low DEX won't kill you. You're not going to use bows much and you'll avoid finesse weapons. So it might go against stereotype and people would say "well, just play a Fighter then", but you will still get Ranger spells and the option for a pet or a some other not-insubstantial perk. (With all the fields, fire resistance will probably be more worthwhile than Fighter's Second Wind. No need to heal if you just avoid the damage in the first place, right?)

The only one I totally agree with is that Sanctified Stalker is pretty lame. Sacred Flame is probably the worst damage-dealing cantrip in existence and there are very few times when it would be better than an arrow to the knee. Hell, even getting the Light cantrip would probably be more useful! Seriously... can we sub Light for Sacred Flame?

Not a fan of the Larian Ranger. They are trying to make it a replacement for a Fighter or Rogue, but this does not correspond to the nature of this class. Much more I like the new revision from Tasha's Cauldron of Everything;

I never said the extra proficiency was worthless, my first sentence says they're nice. This post is specifically about the unique features of each. True strike in particular is absolutely worthless, and Sacred Flame is not far ahead. Casual players could waste the pick on heavy armor proficiency if they don't know about minimum STR requirements. Prot from Evil and Good has some uses in certain situations (especially with how the AI handles targeting right now). However, by the time you get to a point where Prot from evil and good has a use, you might not want to use a Ranger action for utility when they have access to multiattack and are generally going to want to deal damage.

To clarify I think Larian is on the right track with these changes, I just think they need to buff these options to make them feel like they actually do something impactful.

Ranged Knight is Op and must have, dunno what are you talking about, you get heavy armor, shield+rapier, on 4th lvl takes vitality(+8hp), summons arachnid\bear and becomes party tank.

Good argument. Quite true.

On the new topic of Ranger power difference :
Rangers are excellent in my opinion even if these new features need some changes. While a Battlemaster gets a few points, with only 1 Short Rest restock, my Ranger Hunter has +2 to hit with her bow and almost always gets an extra 1d8 damage! plus Hunter's Mark (she destroys! 1d8 +1d8 +1d6 almost every turn!). She has almost as many spell slots as a Warlock (considering Warlock has 2 x Short Rest), but with a bunch of perks. Rogue is comparable, but I agree Rangers should not get the Thieves Tool (just implement multiclassing at some point).
- Tasha's Cauldron is not published yet as far as I know.

I took Ranger Knight as a dexterity based ranger and found that it aloud me to wear the simple helmet (protects from criticals). Being able to wear a heavy helmet alone is worth a lot especially since there will be better ones down the line. I also imagine they might introduce gauntlets, shields or boots that would have this requirement as well. Apart from that I have seen no strength restrictions on the heavy armor I have found in EA.

Not sure what the difference between heavy in BG3 is vs. DND but in DND platemail has a STR 15 requirement and AC 18. Half plate has no STR requirement and AC 15+ DEX (max +2). So you need to put 15 points in STR to get +1 AC. If you're dumping DEX then sure, go for it, otherwise it's too Multiple Ability Dependent.

In DND there is no such thing as "Heavy Helmet". Helmets don't have armor proficiency requirements. Can you confirm that you're only able to wear the helmet because of proficiency? Can you also tell me what heavy armor you've found?

Yes. This : https://baldursgate3.wiki.fextralife.com/Helmet and this : https://baldursgate3.wiki.fextralife.com/Heavy+Armor , but none of the heavy armor was better then the good medium yet. There was also a pair of gauntlets that required medium armor proficiency.

I can confirm that helmets are restricted by proficiency. But in 5E D&D, helmets aren't a separate thing -- they're part of armor. In BG3, they give benefits (like the super-amazing protection from critical hits). I don't have a strong feeling about this either way, really.

So I just tested this and you can wear the helmet even if you lack proficiency with seemingly no downside. In the PHB it says if you lack armor proficiency you can't cast spells, attack with STR or DEX rolls and have disadvantage on ability checks.

That means either the helmet doesn't actually have a proficiency requirement and the description is bugged, or proficiency penalties aren't implemented yet.

Here is a screenshot of Gale with the helmet, with his spell list available:
https://imgur.com/RxVQUI1

That helmet benefit (protection from critical hits) is straight up from BG1/BG2, all the basic helmet gave it to you.