Larian Banner
Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Page 1 of 2 1 2
#749327 05/01/21 03:08 AM
Joined: Aug 2016
J
JiruoVX Offline OP
stranger
OP Offline
stranger
J
Joined: Aug 2016
When I first heard BG3 was working with WoTC in implementing changes to the ranger, I expected a sneak peak into the alterative class features to come in the Tasha's Book. Tasha's came out last month and the changes are not remotely similar. They are not even close.

I get quite confused with how much variance Larian adds to BG3 away from 5e beyond GM interpretation and rulings which are required for the game to function. If a whole classes cannot be replicated in 5e tabletop, you have likely diverged to far from home.

Rangers wasn't ever bad in 5e. Its had a few base class feature that weren't useful which turned players off on the ranger. They did fine damage and have get utility due to their great spell list. The alterative class features in Tasha's properly repalce all the bad features with useful features that have real mechanical benefits. I don't understand the need to diverge so far from 5e in this case.

Wish Larian was more clear on whether this is a game built on 5e or simply inspired by the world of D&D. I get lost in what their vision is for the D&D title they begged WoTC to give them rights too.

This first post is currently short. Will have some follow up in the thread later. Been a long work day. I will have more to say with regards to the beast master in particular. My first run and current rerun were beast masters.

Joined: Oct 2020
enthusiast
Offline
enthusiast
Joined: Oct 2020
Originally Posted by JiruoVX
Wish Larian was more clear on whether this is a game built on 5e or simply inspired by the world of D&D. I get lost in what their vision is for the D&D title they begged WoTC to give them rights too.
If it’s going to be worthy as a sequel (Baldur’s Gate III) and not a new series (Baldur’s Gate: Rise of the Illithids), it should be built on D&D and not just have some D&D flavour. I agree, the Ranger options in Tasha’s are just fine, would much prefer to see those in this game. I’m sure WotC have seen this game as an opportunity to onboard new players to the tabletop game, and the more Larian go off-piste the more confusing it’s going to be. Especially as many systems aren’t clearly explained in the game.

Joined: Nov 2020
enthusiast
Offline
enthusiast
Joined: Nov 2020
Originally Posted by LukasPrism
Originally Posted by JiruoVX
Wish Larian was more clear on whether this is a game built on 5e or simply inspired by the world of D&D. I get lost in what their vision is for the D&D title they begged WoTC to give them rights too.
If it’s going to be worthy as a sequel (Baldur’s Gate III) and not a new series (Baldur’s Gate: Rise of the Illithids), it should be built on D&D and not just have some D&D flavour. I agree, the Ranger options in Tasha’s are just fine, would much prefer to see those in this game. I’m sure WotC have seen this game as an opportunity to onboard new players to the tabletop game, and the more Larian go off-piste the more confusing it’s going to be. Especially as many systems aren’t clearly explained in the game.


Having not played AD&D for ages I'm not familiar with this "Tasha's" for which you and the OP mention. Where can I read about this here and get myself up to date. here is what I found on the Ranger and 5e:

https://roll20.net/compendium/dnd5e/Classes:Ranger/#toc_11

Last edited by DragonMaster69; 05/01/21 05:20 AM.
Joined: Oct 2020
enthusiast
Offline
enthusiast
Joined: Oct 2020
She's the next Witch in line after Baba Yaga

Good stuff for a ranger to get tangled up in

Its a companion source book just came out at the end of the year

[Linked Image from i.ibb.co]

[Linked Image from i.ibb.co]

Last edited by Black_Elk; 05/01/21 06:13 AM.
Joined: Nov 2020
enthusiast
Offline
enthusiast
Joined: Nov 2020
Thanks will have to check it out

Joined: Oct 2020
enthusiast
Offline
enthusiast
Joined: Oct 2020
I mean the PHB ranger wasn't great. Mostly because it required the DM to lean into Ranger features to make the class stand out. That is why TCoE helped a lot. But it is out for what, a month?

Problem with ranger was that a lot of features relate to the environment. Not easily translatable to a video game. Like Natural Explorer - that is a feature relating to long distance travel and BG3 does not.

So there needs to be some changes to Ranger regardless.

Joined: Nov 2020
enthusiast
Offline
enthusiast
Joined: Nov 2020
Originally Posted by Eugerome
I mean the PHB ranger wasn't great. Mostly because it required the DM to lean into Ranger features to make the class stand out. That is why TCoE helped a lot. But it is out for what, a month?

Problem with ranger was that a lot of features relate to the environment. Not easily translatable to a video game. Like Natural Explorer - that is a feature relating to long distance travel and BG3 does not.

So there needs to be some changes to Ranger regardless.


I'm currently playing a half-elven female Ranger Knight that dual-wields and will have to admit that she kicks some series ass on the battlefield.

Joined: Sep 2015
old hand
Offline
old hand
Joined: Sep 2015
In the PHB is written for the beastmaster for example:
- the companion has the HP of an ordinary animal of this type or 4 times the class level of the ranger
- the ranger can command the companion to attack instead of attacking himself.

So the animal is pathetically weak and you have to decide if you attack or the animal.
The computer game also does not include long distance travel, orientation or following somebodies tracks.
They had to make changes and the for me it looks good in BG3, but I am not a PnP player.
The animal companions need to scale with level, else a lv3 animal will be useless later.
I did not play the other subclass yet.
I did not read the book posted above.

PS:
Is witch an official term in DnD? Or is it the female form for wizard or sorcerer?
In Pathfinder WotR we get the witch class, an arcane caster (low HP and hit chance, no armor, like a mage) who can heal or protect companions, summon creatures and curse enemies but does not have most of the usual arcane or divine buff or damage spells.


groovy Prof. Dr. Dr. Mad S. Tist groovy

World leading expert of artificial stupidity.
Because there are too many people who work on artificial intelligence already :hihi:
Joined: Oct 2020
old hand
Offline
old hand
Joined: Oct 2020
Witch is not a technical term in DnD. You could have a "witch" who is a Wizard, a Sorcerer, a Warlock or even a Cleric.

But remember that even though wizard and sorcerer and what not are technical terms in the context of mechanics, in in-world terms they're just synonyms and different words for people who do magic.

Witch is also gender neutral, even if it's mostly used as feminine in our modern world. If anything is a male-gendered version of witch it is witcher (even though that is just a version of the same).


Optimistically Apocalyptic
Joined: Oct 2020
enthusiast
Offline
enthusiast
Joined: Oct 2020
Imagine rolling a ranger in BG3. You took Tundra as your favored Terrain and Dragon as your Favored Enemy.

Congrats, none of your class features work for all of Act 1 and prooobably all of Act 2 once we reach Baldur's Gate.

Now imagine reaching a high enough level to choose a second Favored Terrain. Say, swamp because there was one in Act 1 and that environment was hazardous. Only to later find out the rest of the game is a dungeon crawl through an Ilithid city or something.

PHB ranger was bad because its core class features were all ribbons that only had an effect under very specific circumstance. This could be worked around by a good DM who was willing to change their plans to accommodate a player. But BG3, without a human DM behind the screen, cannot be that accommodating. It is physically impossible.

Ergo PHB ranger was not an option.

As for why they didn't use Tasha's? I am guessing because Tasha's wasn't going to be out by the time BG3 hit early access and Wizards didn't want to spoil their tabletop release with a video game adaptation.

Joined: Aug 2016
J
JiruoVX Offline OP
stranger
OP Offline
stranger
J
Joined: Aug 2016
Obviously the default PHB features should not be used. The general point for this thread is the Tasha's Alterative Feature should be on display for fixing the ranger.

No PnP game is 100% the same but there are fundamentals which allows our games to be more similar than different. There are many areas where its hard to tell BG3 is based on the D&D ruleset.
When all classes are unseen rouges is a clear example.

What is difficult to understand, is prior D&D rules sets have been applied to a videogame. These editions are far more complex to implement than 5e.
2e, 3.5e, Pathfinder, and even 5e have all had successfully ported to videogames closely following the given rulesets.

Last edited by JiruoVX; 06/01/21 12:14 AM.
Joined: Sep 2015
old hand
Offline
old hand
Joined: Sep 2015
Larian was very successful with D:OS2 so I can understand if they wanted to keep stuff from there.

Personally I did not like it that much ( inflating numbers, random equipment, the whole map full of necro fire after every battle ) and I never finished it.
So I would prefer if they stay closer to PnP rules.
Some changes in the last big patch are a good start.


groovy Prof. Dr. Dr. Mad S. Tist groovy

World leading expert of artificial stupidity.
Because there are too many people who work on artificial intelligence already :hihi:
Joined: Oct 2020
member
Offline
member
Joined: Oct 2020
Originally Posted by JiruoVX
Rangers wasn't ever bad in 5e.


No, the ranger does in fact, suck. It's hidden by the fact that 5E is easy mode in difficulty with most monsters being a pathetic bag of hit points, an AC of 8+1d6 and a wimpy melee attack. But they are definitely underpowered, considering their nearest analogue, the paladin, is so far over them its a joke. They have some near useless ribbon features, the paladin gets about as many bonus spells from their oath as rangers get to even know (on top of knowing their entire list), and their action economy is pure dookie. Hunter's mark conflicts with dual wielding (which is borked balance wise in it own way), they need to spend an action to have their pet do anything (a paladin's summoned steed gets to act for free, and isnt even a class defining feature!). Their supposed exploration features are a joke compared to what a druid could do. Read Find the Path.

Basically they're a crap druid who traded away most of their spellcasting, wild shape, and a ton of other features for a second bow shot and an extra hit point. There is a reason they rank last in satisfaction surveys and we've seen WOTC try and remake the class multiple times.

Last edited by Bossk_Hogg; 06/01/21 06:32 PM.
Joined: Nov 2020
enthusiast
Offline
enthusiast
Joined: Nov 2020
Originally Posted by Bossk_Hogg
Originally Posted by JiruoVX
Rangers wasn't ever bad in 5e.


No, the ranger does in fact, suck. It's hidden by the fact that 5E is easy mode in difficulty with most monsters being a pathetic bag of hit points, an AC of 8+1d6 and a wimpy melee attack. But they are definitely underpowered, considering their nearest analogue, the paladin, is so far over them its a joke. They have some near useless ribbon features, the paladin gets about as many bonus spells from their oath as rangers get to even know (on top of knowing their entire list), and their action economy is pure dookie. Hunter's mark conflicts with dual wielding (which is borked balance wise in it own way), they need to spend an action to have their pet do anything (a paladin's summoned steed gets to act for free, and isnt even a class defining feature!). Their supposed exploration features are a joke compared to what a druid could do. Read Find the Path.

Basically they're a crap druid who traded away most of their spellcasting, wild shape, and a ton of other features for a second bow shot and an extra hit point. There is a reason they rank last in satisfaction surveys and we've seen WOTC try and remake the class multiple times.


I for one will have to disagree with you o this and the fact that Ranger's suck. I'm currently running a female half-elven Ranger Knight that dual-wields and she is a tank. It all depends on how you build the ranger IMHO. The Ranger Knight is my PC of choice in all honesty the Warlock would be my next one.

Joined: Oct 2020
member
Offline
member
Joined: Oct 2020
Originally Posted by DragonMaster69
Originally Posted by Bossk_Hogg
Originally Posted by JiruoVX
Rangers wasn't ever bad in 5e.


No, the ranger does in fact, suck. It's hidden by the fact that 5E is easy mode in difficulty with most monsters being a pathetic bag of hit points, an AC of 8+1d6 and a wimpy melee attack. But they are definitely underpowered, considering their nearest analogue, the paladin, is so far over them its a joke. They have some near useless ribbon features, the paladin gets about as many bonus spells from their oath as rangers get to even know (on top of knowing their entire list), and their action economy is pure dookie. Hunter's mark conflicts with dual wielding (which is borked balance wise in it own way), they need to spend an action to have their pet do anything (a paladin's summoned steed gets to act for free, and isnt even a class defining feature!). Their supposed exploration features are a joke compared to what a druid could do. Read Find the Path.

Basically they're a crap druid who traded away most of their spellcasting, wild shape, and a ton of other features for a second bow shot and an extra hit point. There is a reason they rank last in satisfaction surveys and we've seen WOTC try and remake the class multiple times.


I for one will have to disagree with you o this and the fact that Ranger's suck. I'm currently running a female half-elven Ranger Knight that dual-wields and she is a tank. It all depends on how you build the ranger IMHO. The Ranger Knight is my PC of choice in all honesty the Warlock would be my next one.

They're actually good in this game. I'm referring to tabletop with the janky ass dual wield rules, pet rules, etc.

Joined: Nov 2020
enthusiast
Offline
enthusiast
Joined: Nov 2020
@Bossk_Hogg Ok now as for the PNP 5e version that I wouldn't know due to the fact that I've not played pnp dnd in about 40 years or so.

Joined: Sep 2017
Location: Norway
enthusiast
Offline
enthusiast
Joined: Sep 2017
Location: Norway
Originally Posted by Bossk_Hogg
They're actually good in this game. I'm referring to tabletop with the janky ass dual wield rules, pet rules, etc.

Are they really? 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).

Last edited by Seraphael; 01/03/21 07:42 PM.
Joined: Nov 2020
P
member
Offline
member
P
Joined: Nov 2020
Personally I don't like the changes Larian has made to rangers, but I've had this conversation before so I'll keep it brief.

I was a big fan of the final revised ranger unearthed arcana, I thought it was a decent attempt at fixing ranger and making it less dependent on overspecialised features. It also made changes to beast master that altered companion growth, allowing for growth and flexibility. I played this version of ranger for a while and enjoyed it. See it here.

I was an even bigger fan of the class replacement features for the ranger in the class features unearthed arcana, I felt that this was the best version of ranger, it was flexible and didn't have the front loading issues that many people had with revised ranger. I played this version of ranger for a while and really enjoyed it. See it here.

Tasha's came out, and the class replacement features were not quite the same and the unearthed arcana. I was disappointed because i felt those changes were just unnecessary and a step backwards from where it had been.

In comparison, BG3 hasn't done anything really to combat the main complaints of ranger, the overspecialised features issue, and the lack of companion growth in the beastmaster subclass. They gave it some more subclasses with a really eclectic range of ideas, and called it a day. Maybe RAW ranger just isn't very useful for a video game where wilderness navigation and survival aren't really a thing, but if this is the case, the replacement class features would be so much better than what they have.

Joined: Oct 2020
Location: Liberec
old hand
Online Embarrased
old hand
Joined: Oct 2020
Location: Liberec
Originally Posted by Seraphael
...
You cant take it like this, yes many spells colide but they do on every class ...
For example Druid right now also have almost every spell conditioned by concentration ... that dont make them useless. :-/
Yes, he is unable to use them both at once, but some of those you mentioned (like protection from good and evil) still have its uses, even if purely situational ...


I liked original spellcasting system more ... frown

Anyway ... i cast Eldritch Blast!
Joined: Sep 2017
Location: Norway
enthusiast
Offline
enthusiast
Joined: Sep 2017
Location: Norway
Originally Posted by RagnarokCzD
Originally Posted by Seraphael
...
You cant take it like this, yes many spells colide but they do on every class ...
For example Druid right now also have almost every spell conditioned by concentration ... that dont make them useless. :-/
Yes, he is unable to use them both at once, but some of those you mentioned (like protection from good and evil) still have its uses, even if purely situational ...

I don't really understand what you're attempting to say here, other than somehow hint at Rangers not being useless. Which I never argued they were. Oh and by the way, Druids right now are arguably brokenly overpowered tanks and will be more so once multiclassing is in (Unarmored Defense+wild shape).

Rangers and even more so Warlocks, are defined and limited by their overreliance on their single concentration damage boosting spells; Hunter's Mark and Hex respectively. Druids have lots of concentration spells but aren't nearly as limited or reliant on any single one. Rather, they complement the use of wild shape melee very well. Besides, they have much more spell slots than a Ranger has and are much more free to use a variety.

I addressed specifics, like the fundamental design flaws in the needlessly complex homebrew that creates pitfalls. I also corrected the misconception that Rangers are "fine" based on conflating the very strong buff to attack rolls from height/flanking advantage (that may very well change) with a buff to the Ranger class - which it isn't. Arguably the powers Larian selected, in practice, detracts from the class for the reason mentioned previously; them being much inferior alternatives to Hunter's Mark that are additionally rendered largely useless by the height advantage homebrew, or much inferior alternatives to melee or ranged combat, or largely useless rather obscure skills unless the Ranger happen to be face/lead of party. Thematically it is also a mess.

Loads of trap choices, an empty facade posing as buffs that contradicts WotC's view on what the Ranger needs to be made balanced (despite Larian attempting to manipulate WotC into giving their stamp of approval on the homebrew wholesale in their Stream). These are rather factual statements, but take it like you will.

Last edited by Seraphael; 02/03/21 11:48 AM.
Page 1 of 2 1 2

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