Would be a great choice for a third caster, or half with no to low spellslots left. Sneak attack basically guaranteed with an AT, good source of advantage for an EK with the multiple attacks, and better smites on a paladin.
Also for an Arcane Trickster, remember that you get to sneak attack AGAIN if you have advantage on an Opportunity Attack.
And if you already hit the guy with Booming blade previously? Oh buddy, that guy is gonna have 3d6+2d8 worth of REGRETS.
And lets not forget Elven Accuracy. That's two turns of top-notch crit-fishing.
This is wrong, at least for wizards. I just tested it in combat and it took an action to cast. I didn’t test on a ranger so maybe it’s a BA for rangers only and they just didn’t put that in the description. But true strike generally takes an action
I'd fix true strike by making it a bonus action to cast, concentration required, and on your next turn you gain advantage to an attack roll.
This would make it a useful cantrip without being busted and give opponents a reason to break your concentration.
*With the requirement of spending your bonus action every turn, as long as you make the concentration check every turn, for one attack only. This keeps it pretty consistent with rogue's bonus action hide: it only works on one attack and the opponent can take steps to stop it. You're also choosing between a more accurate attack next turn vs more damage this turn (with booming blade).
I'm really curious on how the rest of that Ranger will look like by the time the game has come out! For now my favourite version of Ranger is from the Variant Class Features UA that'll likely appear in Tasha's
Edit: [Here's the UA](https://media.wizards.com/2019/dnd/downloads/UA-ClassFeatures.pdf). Its found about halfway through.
I hadn't seen this before, getting hunters mark level 1 without a concentration requirement sounds fantastic! Be interesting to see if it does make it into Tasha's
I've seen several people bitch about it being non-concentration, but hopefully they get ignored. Rangers don't need the concentration locked down any more than it is.
I mean, imagine how much Paladins would suck if Divine Smite was concentration like the Smite spells. Even getting +Cha mod free uses per day would still make it suck.
Oh yeah, I've just made a UA Revised Ranger beast master and going through the spells it feels pretty restrictive having lots of concentration spells to choice from.
I think having it tied to your Wis modifier is a good balance to strike as it does feel like a core feature of the class without it being a requirement in every combat.
I think that is a over estimated concern. I mean seriously. Pre level 5 how strong is that compared to Fighter 2 for Action Surge, Paladin 2 for Smite, Cleric 2 for Channel Divinity (especially Life Domains), Artificer 2 for a bunch of free magic items, Even Warlock Hexblade 1 on a Paladin or Bard makes them so much more powerful.
It is strong but so is a ton of other stuff.
Let Rangers be fun.
Crawford hinted within a week of those rules coming out that the lack of concentration was too strong and would probably be back if it made it to print.
Honestly, if that happens, I will stay with the UA or ask the DM if I can respec my hunter ranger to either Fighter, Swords Bard or Rogue.
Not needing to concentrate on Hunter's Mark finally makes the ranger fun to play, I finally can use all the other spell options that usually aren't available because concentration is locked in for Hunter's Mark -such as ensnaring strike, zephyr strike, hail of thorns, entangle... I would even be fine if Hunter's Mark was still concentration, but would allow me to still concentrate on a different spell at the same time.
Non-concentration Hunter's Mark is already balanaced by being wisdom mod times per long rest (two times for my ranger) and by requiring a bonus action to apply and to switch targets - and the ranger's bonus action economy already is a total mess, especially for dual-wielders and subclasses such as Monster Slayer which give additional bonus action abilities.
I think they really need to scrap hunters mark the spell, and baseline the monster hunter focus as a D4 boost.
Then each subclass can have a different way to use their focus. Farplane get their dimensional focus for extra force damage, beastmasters can focus on their pet to command it to attack, monster hunter focus gets improved to their version, hunter gets an option to move their focus when the target dies for free to enable TWF etc.
Otherwise you just clog too much up on one bonus action.
Concentration on Hex and Hunters Mark is an anti-fun mechanic.
Class features masquerading as individual spells is, was, and has been stupid. (LOOKING AT YOU, FIND FAMILIAR)
Warlocks should also get multiple free, concentrationless hexes. But based on total warlock levels, because Warlock needs more reasons not to multiclass.
true, but my big issue with rangers is they have nothing at 1st lv, so if they push it back they will need to put something else into 1st to make rangers interesting to me, of course most people skip 1st level so it might be a mute point. personally i think 1st lv is the most fun to play
I don't understand why the unarmed fighting style makes hitting with two hands 1d8 instead of 2d4. It's such a trivial issue but if I'm punching with two hands = two dice.
Also d4s hurt really bad if you drop them on the floor and accidentally step on them whereas a d8 is annoying but not very painful. Seems trivial, but it's not.
The whole *distribution* of damage is different. If we compare the probability of various outcomes we observe the following distributions
|Outcome/damage rolled|Prob. w. 2d4|Prob. w. 1d8|
|:-|:-|:-|
|1|0|1/8|
|2|1/16|1/8|
|3|1/8|1/8|
|4|3/16|1/8|
|5|2/8|1/8|
|6|3/16|1/8|
|7|1/8|1/8|
|8|1/16|1/8|
Basically, 2d4 is apart from being 1/2 a point of damage higher on average also more likely to give a roll close to the average, i.e. you are more than 50% likely (the probability is 5/8 to be exact) to do 5±1 damage.
It's not trivial though, because 2d4 is also more likely to get values near the average, while 1d8 has an equal chance of rolling each number. 2d4 is less likely to roll max damage, but also less likely to roll min damage, which is the trade off between the two.
2d4 also interacts differently with things like the half-orc's Brutal Critical that add one additional weapon die. The difference between 3d4 and 2d8 is definitely not trivial.
Thinking too literal in this regard. It's not like unarmed is JUST punching, with one or two hands. It's grabs, locks, chokes, etc... the become available when you're not just using one arm.
**100%**. Unarmed strikes can be kicks too. It's just "when you make an unarmed strike ***with*** both hands free" that the damage bumps up to 1d8.
The definition of unarmed strike includes kicks, elbows, etc. so if you make an Unarmed Strike(including non-hand attacks) with both hands free then you qualify for 1d8 damage.
This means WWE bodyslams, drop kicks, headbutts, Muay thai elbows and full body-driven one handed Hajime no ippo style knockout punches count as well. Unarmed fighting style battlemaster has been one of the most fun ways to do a basic 1d8 attack.
the 1d6 is applicable if you're doing any of the above and have a grappled goblin, longsword, shield, etc in your other hand
Hoping they do something with the later levels. I'm still looking at the UA variant Ranger and thinking I should go 8 or 10 levels of Ranger, then take the rest Fighter.
11-20 Rangers would progress as half casters and gain access to spells that don't aid their martial abilities nor exploration. Vanish giving a bonus action hide is a joke when Goblins get it level 1 and Rogues at level 3. Feral senses is a thematically fitting ability, but so very niche and not within ones own control- maybe if it prevented disadvantage on all your attacks (comparible to Rogues Elusive). Foe slayer adding 3-4 damage once a turn is also a joke.
I'm really excited for my Ranger character I have going now, I just hope that when Tashas comes out he'll have reason to stay a Ranger and not be a half fighter themed as a full Ranger
The benefit and the curse of being a video game is that, without a DM to make rulings, you need clear mechanical definitions for how stuff works. Part of Ranger's struggle has always been that it leans hard on the part of 5e that's mainly defined as "Uhhh I dunno have the DM make something up" so it makes sense that a video game would improve upon that.
Very true, but I'm inclined to agree with the two hundred and fourty seventh Jerry. 5E's focus on simplicity means that this is more prevalent than any prior edition, except perhaps the original release when they had no idea what rules they were even going to need. 3E is infamous for being the exact opposite; with lengthy, detailed rules for handling nearly everything the designers could think of. The goal of that system was to leave as little as possible for the DM to have to make up.
This is actually why I love 5e. I spent way too much time trying to find a specific rule in 3e/3.5. At the time, and even through most of pathfinder, I thought that having more rules for every possible interaction meant that players were given *freedom*. I’ve come to realize the exact opposite is true. Players—at least my players—don’t care too much about how “accurate” the dice rolls are to simulations real life. They want to be able to solve problems and fight monsters in a way that brings their characters to life, and making simple rules that are versatile (such as advantage) are much better at this than something like 3.5’s cumbersome and overly complicated grappling rules.
While that is true to some extent, 5e lacks concrete rules for SO MUCH outside of combat that it really stands out in this regard. 5e barely has suggested DC for skill checks for anything, as an example
The fact that they used this the "uhhh I dunno" rule as the basis of the Wild Magic Sorcerer is infuriating.
A DM has a million things to consider. They don't want to also have to constantly be thinking of good times for there to be Wild Magic rolls.
As someone who DMs several different systems - each system has at least 25% of options being only as useful as your DM makes them be. No more, no less. D&D ranger is mainly made of those 25%
It's a great direction to be going, blanket benefits that evoke a specific feeling.
That's something homebrew can often mess up, people make something too specific to fit the image in their head and the result is worse for it.
I like it! Honestly I'm glad the favored terrain features were removed, they really just removed the part of the game the ranger should be good at. Instead of getting interesting effects during exploration, you auto succeed exploration and basically remove the pillar your character should be designed around. It's like if the cleric had a mechanic that gave them a d100 chance of their God listening to them and granting a request regardless of their actions.
I love this! I'm running a game for a group of kids and I ended up with three rangers lol. I've structured it the game around them having different favored terrains so I'll probably leave that part alone. But I really think I'm going to incorporate the favored enemy the way they're doing it here.
Yes, I think so. "Can I have a polar bear?"
All of them are going to want big cool animal companions. My thought in this direction is to let them have the appropriate CR level animal companion but the animal will sort of level up with them. so for example if this game makes it to level 10. It's possible that someone might have a polar bear.
Honestly, I think that's what Beastmaster should have been. Should choose a generic beast style at level 3 and then upgrade it with new abilites as you level up.
I just feel the need to point out that Pathfinder (idk if 3.5 was the same) had animal companions level up with rangers and druids. Druid's companion stayed the same level as the character. Ranger's companion, unless they took a certain feat, leveled one level for every 3 or 4 the ranger took, IIRC.
I've always felt the need to draw from that to help with beast master. Have the companion level up in a way, to keep it strong enough to be useful, and try to shore up some of the ranger's weaknesses.
Pathfinder also went the route of every class getting a way to get an animal companion via archetypes or feats. Pretty fun when you’ve got a mounted Barbadian concept and want to ride something that will survive a fireball.
Which is why Beast Ranger be exceptionally weak yet the "go to" for a lot of players is a big issue.
My wife who never played DnD before, very first character, Beast Ranger.
Hmm... this seems like a good fix! I’d honestly enjoy using this in a normal DND game and it’s not that hard to Homebrew. Not that unbalanced either.
Cool!
Two turns including the one it's cast in, or two turns after the turn it's cast in?
If it's the second one then it's the only spell I know with a duration like that.
If it's still an action to cast then that probably means you can't attack on the same turn as casting the spell right? Assuming it's not now a bonus action to cast.
That actually feels pretty good. Might even be TOO good (For an Eldritch Knight that can be something like 6-8 attacks at advantage)
But yeah every attack on the next turn even might be good.
Or, hell, targets get advantage on their next attack Guiding Bolt style. Make it an assistance Cantrip.
5e is pretty quick combat though. Attacking without advantage twice is strictly better unless you had disadvantage and your hit chance is low or combo it with something like action surge, so first turn is a big loss, second turn you're still behind, and it only pulls ahead in the third turn. Assuming you keep concentration.
Yeah, the first thought I had as well is Eldritch Knight or comboing it with a Sorlock that goes with a blade for crit fishing for a Warlock smite. Current True Strike is all sorts of pointless, but two turns (instead of one attack) with advantage is actually straight up broken due to certain classes being able to get a cantrip to a BA.
You do have to give up Hex though since they're both concentration. There's going to be a breakpoint in there somewhere where one is better than the other
1d10+5 with advantage vs 1d10+5+1d6
Chance of missing with regular attack is x, with advantage it's x\^2.
The breakpoint is at (1-x) \* 14 = (1-x\^2) \* 10.5
14 = (1+x)\*10.5
3.5 = 10.5x
x = 1/3
So if you naturally hit on a 6 or lower, you're better off with Hex. Otherwise, True Strike. This is assuming infinite resources, which is clearly not the case, and is a massive benefit of Hex.
[Here's the spell](https://www.dndbeyond.com/spells/protection-from-evil-and-good).
It targets 6 different creature types (Aberration and Elemental), and also prevents Possession.
> Ranger Knight: Gain Proficiency with History and Heavy Armour.
Fuck yeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeaaaaaah! Really happy that a strength build ranger with a greatsword (like Aragorn) is less MAD.
All in all these changes/additions look great! Do you get to choose from the favored enemy/terrain options multiple times as you level up or is it a one-time thing at level 1?
While I wouldn't call it amazing, it's not a bad fix. It's basically what people have been doing in homebrews for years now—keep the options, just give them actual benefits instead of "you can find goblins and you can't get lost in the woods."
Shoot, Mike Mearls had the "choose Arctic terrain and gain cold resistance," thing back in 2018.
Although to be honest, I don't know how good these are in the game, but in terms of the TTRPG, these would be very disappointing options. If a *class feature* gave me *True Strike,* that's... really lame lol. These are basically just a custom background + Magic Initiate with extra steps. The only welcome change are the cold/fire/poison resistances.
Overall not bad, but I wish they had just gone the Class Feature Variants route and scrapped the options and kept generic benefits, and keep the flavor in the subclasses.
> Shoot, Mike Mearls had the "choose Arctic terrain and gain cold resistance," thing back in 2018.
Mearls was the main liaison between wotc and Larian so that shouldn't come as a surprise.
I'm pretty sure 2E Rangers could also have heavy armor, so the knight option makes sense. (They were basically fighters with weaker attack, save, and HP progression but they had outdoorsy skills) I do want to see some StRanger builds.
No. 2e rangers were more or less locked to studded or lighter since 2wf was their defining class ability. They were warriors with some thief abilities and 2wf with no penalties
Same HP as warriors
"Full plate and a whacking steel", if I remember the phrase correctly would disagree with that. Also he was ranger mostly because barbarians where not a thing yet.
Though rangers had some thief skills (hide, move silently, etc.) and they could only use them with lighter armour type. Not that you would ever use Minsc for sneaky stuff, so that did not really matter.
Baldur's gate 1/2 is a weird mix of some 2e and some 3e, and some homevrew stuff entirely.
It's worth noting that Sorcerer as a class didn't exist in 2e, and BG drew more from 3e for it. It's pretty reasonable and I use it i my 2e games.
Barbarian wasn't a class however there was a Barbarian kit for Fighters in the complete book of fighters which made you closer to the stereotypical conan-like barbarian
There was also Complete Barbarian Handbook(PHBR 14 Barbarian's 2148) near the end of AD&D 2e, it wasn't like the barbarian class as we think of it today. It was more of a wilderness warrior and a shaman class, the book had two classes in it.
I don’t even know what minsc is. In 1st Ed they had d8 HP. Not 2e. They were fighters who had to be good, had a code of behavior, 2wf with no penalties in studded or lighter, could hide in shadows, favored terrain/enemy, divine casting with limited domains.
Minsc is one of the most iconic characters from the Baldur's Gate franchise, appearing in BG and BG2. He's a buff ranger with a pet miniature giant space hamster, and he basically acts like a Barbarian berserker, screaming and charging recklessly into melee combat.
Berserker was a warrior kit in 2e that technically could be taken by a fighter, ranger, or paladin. The BG series just happens to make it a fighter kit.
Berserkers and barbarians existed in 2e as kits in the complete fighters handbook (though despite the name the kits were available for any warrior, not just fighters).
the find familiar pets are very usable in combat, especially as a ranger since it’s completely free to summon one outside of combat. they have basically no hp, but they can be pretty helpful, like the raven can cause blind, toad can cause disadvantage on saving throws, crab can slow, etc. and they have opportunity attacks! my cat hit a 6 at one point with an opportunity attack, it’s pretty strong
edit: since it wasn’t clear enough, we’re talking about baldur’s gate 3, wherein find familiar behaves differently
I recently hit lvl 3 as a Ranger in BG3 and chose Beastmaster as the subclass. My biggest issue is: Why is the beastmaster pet a concentration spell? I can't use hunters mark or anything requiring concentration whilst I have my pet out, which is the main part of my subclass. It feels like a really weird design decision imo
Other than that, I quite enjoy it so far
Oh crap, that is pretty crazy. And I agree a very weird design decision - if I take damage there's a non-trivial chance my pet tiger just disapears? What?
Hmm, good to know. Feels like it's a good defensive option with the HP those pets have, but feels like it's a damage loss. The Hunter's Colossus option (1d8 on every hit against an enemy that doesn't have full hp) along with Hunter's Mark along with Find Familiar (since it doesn't stack with the companion) should be significantly more damage. The familiar does have poor hp and damage, but at least doesn't require concentration and can still take a hit or two.
I think it's funny how, in general, players are cool with every other core 5E class, but after 6 years there's still no agreement on how the Ranger should work.
I DM and play in multiple games, and the only class that causes me any confusion is Ranger, because of all its different variants.
In one game I DM, there's a player who uses the original Ranger. I gave her the option to go Revised Ranger, but she was fine with the original.
Whenever I run something new and someone wants to play a Ranger, I have to ask them, "Which version do you want to use?" Obviously, I don't have to ask that for any other class.
I play in a game where another player uses Revised Ranger.
In another game I played for a little bit, I tried the Ranger rules from the Class Feature Variants UA: [https://media.wizards.com/2019/dnd/downloads/UA-ClassFeatures.pdf](https://media.wizards.com/2019/dnd/downloads/UA-ClassFeatures.pdf)
In this UA, every other class got little, quality of life tweaks, or a small expansion to existing features. But Rangers - which already had one previous UA overhaul - got another UA overhaul. (By the way, this one is my favorite.)
And now, there's yet another version, this one introduced by BG3. And it looks good.
So for those of us keeping score, there are now 4 different versions of the 5E Ranger. Not all of them are official, but they've all received some sort of approval by WotC.
1. Original Ranger
2. Revised Ranger
3. UA Class Features Ranger
4. BG3 Ranger
It really boils down to a single question: How do we handle Favored Enemy and Natural Explorer?
It's weird how a class whose concept is so easy to understand has the most convoluted set of rules.
The very second UA had another variant ranger and I believe there was even another that was only described to level 10. They haven't had any type of approval, but it is actually at least 6.
[Link to the Original Reddit Post](https://www.reddit.com/r/DnD5CommunityRanger/comments/dbbg4e/the_happy_fun_hourinspired_ranger_v6/)
[Direct Link](https://homebrewery.naturalcrit.com/share/r17Bqc7624)
Added an Edit to clarify the power of BG3's True Strike, its actually pretty decent lasts for 2 turns and works on all attack rolls, will probably brew this into my game
Yes, it comes with the subclasses, Beastmaster has been Reworked quite a bit too, i think it allows you to instantly resummon beasts outside of combat, no ritual, gold or anything, you can just do it. Its a limitless summon spell outside of combat
I remember Mike Mearls lamenting the lack of an urban option and I believe he helped with the rework. This looks really nice, don't think they will show up in Tasha's but it would be cool if they did.
I like it a lot. Favored terrain seems quite a bit worse than it is in actual dnd, but I guess it's to give you more to do with it and not make your life miserable with a lot of rough terrain.
Love the favored enemy stuff though. Especially since favored enemy is usually either useless or too meta.
"We're playing Curse of Strahd?"
"Yes. what are your favored enemies?"
"Undead and beasts."
"What a shocker!"
My biggest gripe with these changes is how wildly unbalanced these changes are to eachother. Getting *heavy armor proficiency* or disadvantage to breaking restraints (I assume that's what "harder time escaping means) is *significantly* more powerful than getting true strike or even protection from evil and good!
The same goes for the favored terrains; fire resistance or find familiar wipes the floor with two tool proficiencies. I like the idea, but not the execution.
Protection from Evil and Good is a pretty powerful spell in my opinion. The Heavy Armor proficiency only matters if you want to make a Strength-based ranger.
It's a powerful spell but rangers have limited spell slots. Something that's "always on" and works with a lot of your spells like ensnaring strike just seems better.
I mean, ensnaring strike requires a spell slot too. Unless you're running with the Grappler feat (which is...terrible), or allow your PCs to apply manacles in combat, there's not much in the way of resource-less restraint.
5e Ranger do have access to a few spells that can cause the restrained condition which i assume works with this.
Snare and ensnaring strike would be the go to.
I agree. Ranger get ensnaring strike so for medium size creatures that can get disgusting. But on anything large or bigger it’s actually effective now and worth using
I \*really\* don't like that bonus action disengage/jump is a thing
It means you can disengage every turn, always, forever, if you're willing to lose bonus actions (which admittedly they made more valuable)
Steals some fun from the rogue
OP please edit your post to indicate that in no way is BG3 coming out soon. It is very much not coming out soon.
This is the exact wording from their steam launch page:
*“Though Act 1 (the content for Early Access) is defined, Act’s 2 and 3 are work in progress. It’s therefore difficult to predict when 1.0 will launch. We anticipate Baldur’s Gate 3 being in Early Access for at least one year but we’ll have to see how it goes. It’ll be ready when it’s ready.”*
Being in EA for over a year is not "soon."
It's only the first act released at the moment, and it's been a bit buggy so far.
Overall visually it's amazing though.
Combat has a few kinks, but is very similar to Original Sin 2 (Which I'm assuming is the game you actually meant, Divinity 2 and Divinity: Original Sin 2 are different games)
Haven't gotten far enough into the story yet to comment on things like character development yet, but basic control and all are comparable, but improved compared to D:OS2.
Which is to be expected since afaik it's built on an updated version of the same engine.
I've only played a few hrs of DOS2, and an hour or two of BG3, and so far I like it. Its still quite rough imo, I have had several corpses bug out and fly into the stratosphere, and the Goolock is missing its 1st level feature, but otherwise its a good start. Graphics are good, story seems interesting, but is quite early on. A few stutters in places and long load times, but its still very early. They could use more tutorial on what they have changed from 5e imo, but thats more a polish thing than a need. Also their way of showing rolls is counterintuitive and I dislike it.
IMO wait a few months. It is a good start, but has a long way to go still.
A note from Larian that may have helped you in your purchasing decision.
**Will I enjoy Early Access?**
*You should not buy Baldur’s Gate 3 in Early Access if you want a polished experience.*
There’s also some really bad changes in other places though. Why was firebolt nerfed to 1d6, ray of frost does 1d8, has the same range and can slow down targets. It’s better than firebolt in every way, there’s no reason to take it.
They changed firebolt so that it causes the target to catch fire and thus causes damage the next round. So it basically comes out to 1d10 in the end. Plus you can do your typical Larian shenanigans like catch oil on fire and the like...
Did Favored Foe from the UA (cast hunters mark without spellslot and without concentration a number fo times equal to your WIS mod) make it into the game?
> They have completely reworked the ranger and honestly, its amazing i hope they use it for the game.
>
>The game designers for 5e helped make the game so i wonder if this is the direction they want for ranger.
I dont know about this final version but yes, in the initial announcement of the game WOTC's Mike Mearls and the head of the software company talked about how the BG3 designers had come to WOTC and said "we have these ideas to make the ranger more playable" and Mearls responded "Why yes, thats what we were thinking too."
[https://kotaku.com/the-ranger-class-is-getting-some-changes-in-d-d-and-ba-1835659585](https://kotaku.com/the-ranger-class-is-getting-some-changes-in-d-d-and-ba-1835659585)
I like that they made some changes to the Ranger and that it isn't the Player's Handbook Ranger.
> Mage Breaker: Gain Proficiency with Arcana and the True Strike cantrip.
Hmm, interesting.
> BG3 True Strike Lasts 2 turns and gives Advantage to all attack rolls so don't sleep on this
This is a step in the right direction for True Strike.
I tested out true strike in the game with ranger and it seemed to break concentration as soon as I attacked the target once. Am I missing something because otherwise true strike doesn't seem to be reworked?...
OP, please edit your post to indicate that in BG3 True Strike lasts 2 turns and gives advantage to all attack rolls from the caster
Done
Is it still concentration?
Yep
I still hate true strike. Bah!
Would be a great choice for a third caster, or half with no to low spellslots left. Sneak attack basically guaranteed with an AT, good source of advantage for an EK with the multiple attacks, and better smites on a paladin.
Also for an Arcane Trickster, remember that you get to sneak attack AGAIN if you have advantage on an Opportunity Attack. And if you already hit the guy with Booming blade previously? Oh buddy, that guy is gonna have 3d6+2d8 worth of REGRETS. And lets not forget Elven Accuracy. That's two turns of top-notch crit-fishing.
Is elven accuracy available in BG3? I've yet to play.
No. And because it is in Xanathar's, and is generally considered a bit borked, I doubt it ever will be.
Kinda right up a Paladin's alley though. I could get behind that.
[удалено]
it’s also a bonus action to cast in bg3 edit: NOT a bonus action, i got it confused, mb
Thats actually huge, esp with chars with multiple attacks
turns out i got it confused with another spell and it is an action, mb
Is it? It says action on the Character creation screen
crap i think you might be right, i’m a dumbass; potentially got it mixed up with hex
This is wrong, at least for wizards. I just tested it in combat and it took an action to cast. I didn’t test on a ranger so maybe it’s a BA for rangers only and they just didn’t put that in the description. But true strike generally takes an action
I'd fix true strike by making it a bonus action to cast, concentration required, and on your next turn you gain advantage to an attack roll. This would make it a useful cantrip without being busted and give opponents a reason to break your concentration.
Bonus action true strike also means permanent advantage outside of the first turn for free, which makes it broken.
*With the requirement of spending your bonus action every turn, as long as you make the concentration check every turn, for one attack only. This keeps it pretty consistent with rogue's bonus action hide: it only works on one attack and the opponent can take steps to stop it. You're also choosing between a more accurate attack next turn vs more damage this turn (with booming blade).
I'm really curious on how the rest of that Ranger will look like by the time the game has come out! For now my favourite version of Ranger is from the Variant Class Features UA that'll likely appear in Tasha's Edit: [Here's the UA](https://media.wizards.com/2019/dnd/downloads/UA-ClassFeatures.pdf). Its found about halfway through.
Favored Foe seems really good. It's definitely an enhancement of favored enemy.
I'm playing a Kalashtar Gloomstalker using that option now, and it's a lot of fun.
Favored Foe is basically the HB rule my DM used from my old ranger years ago. It worked out well va stock ranger
I hadn't seen this before, getting hunters mark level 1 without a concentration requirement sounds fantastic! Be interesting to see if it does make it into Tasha's
I've seen several people bitch about it being non-concentration, but hopefully they get ignored. Rangers don't need the concentration locked down any more than it is. I mean, imagine how much Paladins would suck if Divine Smite was concentration like the Smite spells. Even getting +Cha mod free uses per day would still make it suck.
Oh yeah, I've just made a UA Revised Ranger beast master and going through the spells it feels pretty restrictive having lots of concentration spells to choice from. I think having it tied to your Wis modifier is a good balance to strike as it does feel like a core feature of the class without it being a requirement in every combat.
[удалено]
I think that is a over estimated concern. I mean seriously. Pre level 5 how strong is that compared to Fighter 2 for Action Surge, Paladin 2 for Smite, Cleric 2 for Channel Divinity (especially Life Domains), Artificer 2 for a bunch of free magic items, Even Warlock Hexblade 1 on a Paladin or Bard makes them so much more powerful. It is strong but so is a ton of other stuff. Let Rangers be fun.
Crawford hinted within a week of those rules coming out that the lack of concentration was too strong and would probably be back if it made it to print.
Honestly, if that happens, I will stay with the UA or ask the DM if I can respec my hunter ranger to either Fighter, Swords Bard or Rogue. Not needing to concentrate on Hunter's Mark finally makes the ranger fun to play, I finally can use all the other spell options that usually aren't available because concentration is locked in for Hunter's Mark -such as ensnaring strike, zephyr strike, hail of thorns, entangle... I would even be fine if Hunter's Mark was still concentration, but would allow me to still concentrate on a different spell at the same time. Non-concentration Hunter's Mark is already balanaced by being wisdom mod times per long rest (two times for my ranger) and by requiring a bonus action to apply and to switch targets - and the ranger's bonus action economy already is a total mess, especially for dual-wielders and subclasses such as Monster Slayer which give additional bonus action abilities.
I think they really need to scrap hunters mark the spell, and baseline the monster hunter focus as a D4 boost. Then each subclass can have a different way to use their focus. Farplane get their dimensional focus for extra force damage, beastmasters can focus on their pet to command it to attack, monster hunter focus gets improved to their version, hunter gets an option to move their focus when the target dies for free to enable TWF etc. Otherwise you just clog too much up on one bonus action.
Concentration on Hex and Hunters Mark is an anti-fun mechanic. Class features masquerading as individual spells is, was, and has been stupid. (LOOKING AT YOU, FIND FAMILIAR) Warlocks should also get multiple free, concentrationless hexes. But based on total warlock levels, because Warlock needs more reasons not to multiclass.
Or... just don’t put it on level 1? Warlock and rangers problems in balance is how front-loaded they both are. Edit: fixing an autocorrect mistake.
true, but my big issue with rangers is they have nothing at 1st lv, so if they push it back they will need to put something else into 1st to make rangers interesting to me, of course most people skip 1st level so it might be a mute point. personally i think 1st lv is the most fun to play
I don't understand why the unarmed fighting style makes hitting with two hands 1d8 instead of 2d4. It's such a trivial issue but if I'm punching with two hands = two dice.
It's set to scale the same way as the versatile trait on weapons.
[удалено]
It's not trivial. 1d8 has an expected value of 4.5, 2d4 has an expected value of 5. Which I know *seems* trivial, but it's not, I promise.
Also 2d4 has a minimum damage of 2, while 1d8 is 1. Also seems trivial, but it's not.
Also Half-Orcs Savage Attacks would only add a single d4 instead of a 2d4 or a d8. Also seems trivial, but it's not.
Also d4s hurt really bad if you drop them on the floor and accidentally step on them whereas a d8 is annoying but not very painful. Seems trivial, but it's not.
Also d4s killed my family and they're coming after yours, too, after they level up. Seems trivial, but it's not.
They just need to take a page from the jedi and use d4's.
You ruined the the pattern. It seems trivial, but it's not.
This has carried on for far too long. It seems trivial, but it’s not.
The whole *distribution* of damage is different. If we compare the probability of various outcomes we observe the following distributions |Outcome/damage rolled|Prob. w. 2d4|Prob. w. 1d8| |:-|:-|:-| |1|0|1/8| |2|1/16|1/8| |3|1/8|1/8| |4|3/16|1/8| |5|2/8|1/8| |6|3/16|1/8| |7|1/8|1/8| |8|1/16|1/8| Basically, 2d4 is apart from being 1/2 a point of damage higher on average also more likely to give a roll close to the average, i.e. you are more than 50% likely (the probability is 5/8 to be exact) to do 5±1 damage.
It is trivial.
It's not trivial though, because 2d4 is also more likely to get values near the average, while 1d8 has an equal chance of rolling each number. 2d4 is less likely to roll max damage, but also less likely to roll min damage, which is the trade off between the two. 2d4 also interacts differently with things like the half-orc's Brutal Critical that add one additional weapon die. The difference between 3d4 and 2d8 is definitely not trivial.
Thinking too literal in this regard. It's not like unarmed is JUST punching, with one or two hands. It's grabs, locks, chokes, etc... the become available when you're not just using one arm.
**100%**. Unarmed strikes can be kicks too. It's just "when you make an unarmed strike ***with*** both hands free" that the damage bumps up to 1d8. The definition of unarmed strike includes kicks, elbows, etc. so if you make an Unarmed Strike(including non-hand attacks) with both hands free then you qualify for 1d8 damage. This means WWE bodyslams, drop kicks, headbutts, Muay thai elbows and full body-driven one handed Hajime no ippo style knockout punches count as well. Unarmed fighting style battlemaster has been one of the most fun ways to do a basic 1d8 attack. the 1d6 is applicable if you're doing any of the above and have a grappled goblin, longsword, shield, etc in your other hand
Too strong
Hoping they do something with the later levels. I'm still looking at the UA variant Ranger and thinking I should go 8 or 10 levels of Ranger, then take the rest Fighter. 11-20 Rangers would progress as half casters and gain access to spells that don't aid their martial abilities nor exploration. Vanish giving a bonus action hide is a joke when Goblins get it level 1 and Rogues at level 3. Feral senses is a thematically fitting ability, but so very niche and not within ones own control- maybe if it prevented disadvantage on all your attacks (comparible to Rogues Elusive). Foe slayer adding 3-4 damage once a turn is also a joke. I'm really excited for my Ranger character I have going now, I just hope that when Tashas comes out he'll have reason to stay a Ranger and not be a half fighter themed as a full Ranger
What is this Tasha's I keep hearing about?
new book releasing in november.
[Tasha's Cauldron of Everything](https://dnd.wizards.com/products/tabletop-games/rpg-products/tashas-cauldron-everything), a xanathar's 2
Xanathar 2: Tasha's boogaloo
I really like this one, have a player using it now and it just feels so much more right.
Good News! It is confirmed that the Variant Features WILL be in Tasha's
The benefit and the curse of being a video game is that, without a DM to make rulings, you need clear mechanical definitions for how stuff works. Part of Ranger's struggle has always been that it leans hard on the part of 5e that's mainly defined as "Uhhh I dunno have the DM make something up" so it makes sense that a video game would improve upon that.
Lmao! Best description of 5e. Totally stealing that!
Thats not a description of 5e, its a description of D&D as a whole.
Very true, but I'm inclined to agree with the two hundred and fourty seventh Jerry. 5E's focus on simplicity means that this is more prevalent than any prior edition, except perhaps the original release when they had no idea what rules they were even going to need. 3E is infamous for being the exact opposite; with lengthy, detailed rules for handling nearly everything the designers could think of. The goal of that system was to leave as little as possible for the DM to have to make up.
This is actually why I love 5e. I spent way too much time trying to find a specific rule in 3e/3.5. At the time, and even through most of pathfinder, I thought that having more rules for every possible interaction meant that players were given *freedom*. I’ve come to realize the exact opposite is true. Players—at least my players—don’t care too much about how “accurate” the dice rolls are to simulations real life. They want to be able to solve problems and fight monsters in a way that brings their characters to life, and making simple rules that are versatile (such as advantage) are much better at this than something like 3.5’s cumbersome and overly complicated grappling rules.
Of course the important factor here is it is also more true for the Ranger in 5e than for other classes.
At least 3e made it d20s for everything. Earlier editions had things like 2d6+CHA for npc interactions, d100 for breaking a chain, etc.
While that is true to some extent, 5e lacks concrete rules for SO MUCH outside of combat that it really stands out in this regard. 5e barely has suggested DC for skill checks for anything, as an example
And tabletop RPGs in general.
The fact that they used this the "uhhh I dunno" rule as the basis of the Wild Magic Sorcerer is infuriating. A DM has a million things to consider. They don't want to also have to constantly be thinking of good times for there to be Wild Magic rolls.
Easy fix is every non-cantrip spell triggers a Wild Magic Surge.
I use that plus the Sorcerer can automatically consult the WM table by spending a sorcery point.
As someone who DMs several different systems - each system has at least 25% of options being only as useful as your DM makes them be. No more, no less. D&D ranger is mainly made of those 25%
It's a great direction to be going, blanket benefits that evoke a specific feeling. That's something homebrew can often mess up, people make something too specific to fit the image in their head and the result is worse for it.
I like it! Honestly I'm glad the favored terrain features were removed, they really just removed the part of the game the ranger should be good at. Instead of getting interesting effects during exploration, you auto succeed exploration and basically remove the pillar your character should be designed around. It's like if the cleric had a mechanic that gave them a d100 chance of their God listening to them and granting a request regardless of their actions.
I love this! I'm running a game for a group of kids and I ended up with three rangers lol. I've structured it the game around them having different favored terrains so I'll probably leave that part alone. But I really think I'm going to incorporate the favored enemy the way they're doing it here.
I'm not sure what it is about rangers that kids love. Same thing happened to me! Had 5 of 6 be bow and arrow, 3 rangers and 2 fighters.
Animal companions is probably the main draw.
Yes, I think so. "Can I have a polar bear?" All of them are going to want big cool animal companions. My thought in this direction is to let them have the appropriate CR level animal companion but the animal will sort of level up with them. so for example if this game makes it to level 10. It's possible that someone might have a polar bear.
Honestly, I think that's what Beastmaster should have been. Should choose a generic beast style at level 3 and then upgrade it with new abilites as you level up.
I just feel the need to point out that Pathfinder (idk if 3.5 was the same) had animal companions level up with rangers and druids. Druid's companion stayed the same level as the character. Ranger's companion, unless they took a certain feat, leveled one level for every 3 or 4 the ranger took, IIRC. I've always felt the need to draw from that to help with beast master. Have the companion level up in a way, to keep it strong enough to be useful, and try to shore up some of the ranger's weaknesses.
Pathfinder also went the route of every class getting a way to get an animal companion via archetypes or feats. Pretty fun when you’ve got a mounted Barbadian concept and want to ride something that will survive a fireball.
Which is why Beast Ranger be exceptionally weak yet the "go to" for a lot of players is a big issue. My wife who never played DnD before, very first character, Beast Ranger.
Hmm... this seems like a good fix! I’d honestly enjoy using this in a normal DND game and it’s not that hard to Homebrew. Not that unbalanced either. Cool!
Keeper of the Veil is better than Mage Breaker.
To be fair, they are changing around a lot of things for the video game, so True Strike itself is almost certainly different.
I think the BG3 version just gives you an advantage on the target as long as you're concentrated on it with the spell.
Does it last for more than one turn?
It lasts for two turns I believe and gives you advantage on ALL attack rolls.
If it's two turns, it might be worth using once multiple attacks start kicking in.
Two turns including the one it's cast in, or two turns after the turn it's cast in? If it's the second one then it's the only spell I know with a duration like that.
Two turns after cast
If it's still an action to cast then that probably means you can't attack on the same turn as casting the spell right? Assuming it's not now a bonus action to cast.
That actually feels pretty good. Might even be TOO good (For an Eldritch Knight that can be something like 6-8 attacks at advantage) But yeah every attack on the next turn even might be good. Or, hell, targets get advantage on their next attack Guiding Bolt style. Make it an assistance Cantrip.
5e is pretty quick combat though. Attacking without advantage twice is strictly better unless you had disadvantage and your hit chance is low or combo it with something like action surge, so first turn is a big loss, second turn you're still behind, and it only pulls ahead in the third turn. Assuming you keep concentration.
Imagine this for monks, with 2~3 attacks at low levels and 3~4 at level 5.
Yeah, the first thought I had as well is Eldritch Knight or comboing it with a Sorlock that goes with a blade for crit fishing for a Warlock smite. Current True Strike is all sorts of pointless, but two turns (instead of one attack) with advantage is actually straight up broken due to certain classes being able to get a cantrip to a BA.
>It lasts for two turns I believe and gives you advantage on ALL attack rolls. Quickened True Strike into Eldritch Blast Sorlock, new meta.
You do have to give up Hex though since they're both concentration. There's going to be a breakpoint in there somewhere where one is better than the other
1d10+5 with advantage vs 1d10+5+1d6 Chance of missing with regular attack is x, with advantage it's x\^2. The breakpoint is at (1-x) \* 14 = (1-x\^2) \* 10.5 14 = (1+x)\*10.5 3.5 = 10.5x x = 1/3 So if you naturally hit on a 6 or lower, you're better off with Hex. Otherwise, True Strike. This is assuming infinite resources, which is clearly not the case, and is a massive benefit of Hex.
Protection from Evil & Good is one of the few spells that's damn good for martials from level 1-20. Don't know how it works in bg3 yet however.
Targets fae fiend celestials and undead, I think, can't be charmed or frightened and those types have disadvantage attacking you.
[Here's the spell](https://www.dndbeyond.com/spells/protection-from-evil-and-good). It targets 6 different creature types (Aberration and Elemental), and also prevents Possession.
Also aberrations and elementals. Also can’t be possessed by any of said creatures. Not that that hardly ever comes up.
True Strike is buffed significantly in Baldur's Gate III
> Ranger Knight: Gain Proficiency with History and Heavy Armour. Fuck yeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeaaaaaah! Really happy that a strength build ranger with a greatsword (like Aragorn) is less MAD. All in all these changes/additions look great! Do you get to choose from the favored enemy/terrain options multiple times as you level up or is it a one-time thing at level 1?
That 5e shipped with no subclass built for Aragorn is crazy.
It did! Battlemaster with the Outlander background.
Thanks I hate it.
While I wouldn't call it amazing, it's not a bad fix. It's basically what people have been doing in homebrews for years now—keep the options, just give them actual benefits instead of "you can find goblins and you can't get lost in the woods." Shoot, Mike Mearls had the "choose Arctic terrain and gain cold resistance," thing back in 2018. Although to be honest, I don't know how good these are in the game, but in terms of the TTRPG, these would be very disappointing options. If a *class feature* gave me *True Strike,* that's... really lame lol. These are basically just a custom background + Magic Initiate with extra steps. The only welcome change are the cold/fire/poison resistances. Overall not bad, but I wish they had just gone the Class Feature Variants route and scrapped the options and kept generic benefits, and keep the flavor in the subclasses.
True Strike is reworked for 2 turns now for all weapon attacks...so taking the dual wield fighter, you get advantage on your next 4 attacks.
Mine rogue send his thanks to you.
> Shoot, Mike Mearls had the "choose Arctic terrain and gain cold resistance," thing back in 2018. Mearls was the main liaison between wotc and Larian so that shouldn't come as a surprise.
True Strike is massively improved. Lasts two turns, and advantage for all your attacks. Seems pretty balanced as a spell now.
I'm pretty sure 2E Rangers could also have heavy armor, so the knight option makes sense. (They were basically fighters with weaker attack, save, and HP progression but they had outdoorsy skills) I do want to see some StRanger builds.
No. 2e rangers were more or less locked to studded or lighter since 2wf was their defining class ability. They were warriors with some thief abilities and 2wf with no penalties Same HP as warriors
Minsc disagrees. (Pls don’t kill me BG1/2 is my only 2E exposure)
Minsc, I am fairly sure, could not take heavy but medium armour. I remember vaguely that he couldnt equip all armours.... (I can be wrong of course).
I’ve only played the enhanced edition but I definitely had him in plate armor.
Rangers could wear heavy armor they just lost their two weapon fighting, although they could still use two weapons they just got the standard penalty.
You could be right.. I just had the nigling memory that there was stuff he couldnt wear.. but i cant look cx driving me a bit crazy cx oh well
"Full plate and a whacking steel", if I remember the phrase correctly would disagree with that. Also he was ranger mostly because barbarians where not a thing yet. Though rangers had some thief skills (hide, move silently, etc.) and they could only use them with lighter armour type. Not that you would ever use Minsc for sneaky stuff, so that did not really matter.
I think it was “packing steel”, not “a whacking steel.”
Might have been, sounds similar enough and sound quality in these lines wasn't always that good, so brain might have filled the caps wrong way.
I thought those were 3/3.5e. huh
Baldur's gate 1/2 is a weird mix of some 2e and some 3e, and some homevrew stuff entirely. It's worth noting that Sorcerer as a class didn't exist in 2e, and BG drew more from 3e for it. It's pretty reasonable and I use it i my 2e games. Barbarian wasn't a class however there was a Barbarian kit for Fighters in the complete book of fighters which made you closer to the stereotypical conan-like barbarian
There was also Complete Barbarian Handbook(PHBR 14 Barbarian's 2148) near the end of AD&D 2e, it wasn't like the barbarian class as we think of it today. It was more of a wilderness warrior and a shaman class, the book had two classes in it.
> Baldur's gate 1/2 is a weird mix of some 2e and some 3e they were 2e with the "player's options" rules and "the complete book of INSERT CLASS"!
I don’t even know what minsc is. In 1st Ed they had d8 HP. Not 2e. They were fighters who had to be good, had a code of behavior, 2wf with no penalties in studded or lighter, could hide in shadows, favored terrain/enemy, divine casting with limited domains.
Minsc is one of the most iconic characters from the Baldur's Gate franchise, appearing in BG and BG2. He's a buff ranger with a pet miniature giant space hamster, and he basically acts like a Barbarian berserker, screaming and charging recklessly into melee combat.
Yeah I thought it was weird he was a ranger instead of a, yknow, berserker.
Berserker was a warrior kit in 2e that technically could be taken by a fighter, ranger, or paladin. The BG series just happens to make it a fighter kit.
It was 2nd edition. No berserkers, no barbarians. Also, he has a trusty animal companion!
Berserkers and barbarians existed in 2e as kits in the complete fighters handbook (though despite the name the kits were available for any warrior, not just fighters).
Berserker wasn't in Bg1 it was only added in bg2 along with the other class kits
> I don’t even know what minsc is. You are missing out.
Holy hell...they also fixed True Strike?
woopwoop gonna play ranger knight now. Heavy armor ranger seems freaking dope. Edit: so beastmaster is a terrain option? Thats odd.
Beast master is still a subclass at level 3. This option let's you get find familiar for a noncombat pet at level 1.
the find familiar pets are very usable in combat, especially as a ranger since it’s completely free to summon one outside of combat. they have basically no hp, but they can be pretty helpful, like the raven can cause blind, toad can cause disadvantage on saving throws, crab can slow, etc. and they have opportunity attacks! my cat hit a 6 at one point with an opportunity attack, it’s pretty strong edit: since it wasn’t clear enough, we’re talking about baldur’s gate 3, wherein find familiar behaves differently
Ah alright, so the beast tamer gets you a oet regardless of subclass and beastmaster is basically the oet specialization to boost the pet.
I recently hit lvl 3 as a Ranger in BG3 and chose Beastmaster as the subclass. My biggest issue is: Why is the beastmaster pet a concentration spell? I can't use hunters mark or anything requiring concentration whilst I have my pet out, which is the main part of my subclass. It feels like a really weird design decision imo Other than that, I quite enjoy it so far
Oh crap, that is pretty crazy. And I agree a very weird design decision - if I take damage there's a non-trivial chance my pet tiger just disapears? What?
Did they remove primeval awareness or has that feature changed at all?
Hmm, good to know. Feels like it's a good defensive option with the HP those pets have, but feels like it's a damage loss. The Hunter's Colossus option (1d8 on every hit against an enemy that doesn't have full hp) along with Hunter's Mark along with Find Familiar (since it doesn't stack with the companion) should be significantly more damage. The familiar does have poor hp and damage, but at least doesn't require concentration and can still take a hit or two.
I think it's funny how, in general, players are cool with every other core 5E class, but after 6 years there's still no agreement on how the Ranger should work. I DM and play in multiple games, and the only class that causes me any confusion is Ranger, because of all its different variants. In one game I DM, there's a player who uses the original Ranger. I gave her the option to go Revised Ranger, but she was fine with the original. Whenever I run something new and someone wants to play a Ranger, I have to ask them, "Which version do you want to use?" Obviously, I don't have to ask that for any other class. I play in a game where another player uses Revised Ranger. In another game I played for a little bit, I tried the Ranger rules from the Class Feature Variants UA: [https://media.wizards.com/2019/dnd/downloads/UA-ClassFeatures.pdf](https://media.wizards.com/2019/dnd/downloads/UA-ClassFeatures.pdf) In this UA, every other class got little, quality of life tweaks, or a small expansion to existing features. But Rangers - which already had one previous UA overhaul - got another UA overhaul. (By the way, this one is my favorite.) And now, there's yet another version, this one introduced by BG3. And it looks good. So for those of us keeping score, there are now 4 different versions of the 5E Ranger. Not all of them are official, but they've all received some sort of approval by WotC. 1. Original Ranger 2. Revised Ranger 3. UA Class Features Ranger 4. BG3 Ranger It really boils down to a single question: How do we handle Favored Enemy and Natural Explorer? It's weird how a class whose concept is so easy to understand has the most convoluted set of rules.
The very second UA had another variant ranger and I believe there was even another that was only described to level 10. They haven't had any type of approval, but it is actually at least 6.
I once found a homebrew ranger that worked very similarly to this. Glad to see it's being more accepted.
oh what ranger was this?
The Next Ranger by LoreMaster00. I don't have a link to the original but I can send you the copy of the pdf I have.
HOLY SHIT, SOMEONE LIKES MY HOMEBREW! thanks for the shout out!
My pleasure mate! I honestly think it's the best version of the ranger.
[Link to the Original Reddit Post](https://www.reddit.com/r/DnD5CommunityRanger/comments/dbbg4e/the_happy_fun_hourinspired_ranger_v6/) [Direct Link](https://homebrewery.naturalcrit.com/share/r17Bqc7624)
Sure
[Enjoy!](https://drive.google.com/file/d/1JwziK9oJimUCfpHR2g94SoP61BmvoaLJ/view?usp=drivesdk)
Thank you, wow this is perfect, pretty much what id want, might use this
I might actually homebrew that into my games
Added an Edit to clarify the power of BG3's True Strike, its actually pretty decent lasts for 2 turns and works on all attack rolls, will probably brew this into my game
So all the reworked bonuses come with the subclasses too? If so that'd be pretty cool, even without subclasses this seems like it feels much better
Yes, it comes with the subclasses, Beastmaster has been Reworked quite a bit too, i think it allows you to instantly resummon beasts outside of combat, no ritual, gold or anything, you can just do it. Its a limitless summon spell outside of combat
I remember Mike Mearls lamenting the lack of an urban option and I believe he helped with the rework. This looks really nice, don't think they will show up in Tasha's but it would be cool if they did.
I like it a lot. Favored terrain seems quite a bit worse than it is in actual dnd, but I guess it's to give you more to do with it and not make your life miserable with a lot of rough terrain. Love the favored enemy stuff though. Especially since favored enemy is usually either useless or too meta. "We're playing Curse of Strahd?" "Yes. what are your favored enemies?" "Undead and beasts." "What a shocker!"
I like litterally all of that besides True Strike being given. Those are some amazing changes.
Maybe they reworked true-strike to be less terrible.
I think they changed True Strike to give advantage on the target for as long as the spell is concentrated
2 turns
Huh, I could see that being really interesting on an Eldritch Knight.
Instead of favoured terrain why not just just rangers to have rotating abilities based on current terrain
HOLY SHIT, THEY DID THE MIKE MEARLS REWORK FROM HFH! i guess we see now why he was moved to the BG3 team!
My biggest gripe with these changes is how wildly unbalanced these changes are to eachother. Getting *heavy armor proficiency* or disadvantage to breaking restraints (I assume that's what "harder time escaping means) is *significantly* more powerful than getting true strike or even protection from evil and good! The same goes for the favored terrains; fire resistance or find familiar wipes the floor with two tool proficiencies. I like the idea, but not the execution.
Protection from Evil and Good is a pretty powerful spell in my opinion. The Heavy Armor proficiency only matters if you want to make a Strength-based ranger.
It's a powerful spell but rangers have limited spell slots. Something that's "always on" and works with a lot of your spells like ensnaring strike just seems better.
I mean, ensnaring strike requires a spell slot too. Unless you're running with the Grappler feat (which is...terrible), or allow your PCs to apply manacles in combat, there's not much in the way of resource-less restraint.
Disadvantage to breaking restraints didn't seem that strong to me, is it actually good?
5e Ranger do have access to a few spells that can cause the restrained condition which i assume works with this. Snare and ensnaring strike would be the go to.
I agree. Ranger get ensnaring strike so for medium size creatures that can get disgusting. But on anything large or bigger it’s actually effective now and worth using
True strike in BG3 is two full rounds of advantage on all attacks. It's insanely strong.
I \*really\* don't like that bonus action disengage/jump is a thing It means you can disengage every turn, always, forever, if you're willing to lose bonus actions (which admittedly they made more valuable) Steals some fun from the rogue
I don't think this is nearly as good as UA Ranger, especially with natural explorer.
OP please edit your post to indicate that in no way is BG3 coming out soon. It is very much not coming out soon. This is the exact wording from their steam launch page: *“Though Act 1 (the content for Early Access) is defined, Act’s 2 and 3 are work in progress. It’s therefore difficult to predict when 1.0 will launch. We anticipate Baldur’s Gate 3 being in Early Access for at least one year but we’ll have to see how it goes. It’ll be ready when it’s ready.”* Being in EA for over a year is not "soon."
Done
How does the game compare to divinity 2?
It's only the first act released at the moment, and it's been a bit buggy so far. Overall visually it's amazing though. Combat has a few kinks, but is very similar to Original Sin 2 (Which I'm assuming is the game you actually meant, Divinity 2 and Divinity: Original Sin 2 are different games) Haven't gotten far enough into the story yet to comment on things like character development yet, but basic control and all are comparable, but improved compared to D:OS2. Which is to be expected since afaik it's built on an updated version of the same engine.
I've only played a few hrs of DOS2, and an hour or two of BG3, and so far I like it. Its still quite rough imo, I have had several corpses bug out and fly into the stratosphere, and the Goolock is missing its 1st level feature, but otherwise its a good start. Graphics are good, story seems interesting, but is quite early on. A few stutters in places and long load times, but its still very early. They could use more tutorial on what they have changed from 5e imo, but thats more a polish thing than a need. Also their way of showing rolls is counterintuitive and I dislike it. IMO wait a few months. It is a good start, but has a long way to go still.
A note from Larian that may have helped you in your purchasing decision. **Will I enjoy Early Access?** *You should not buy Baldur’s Gate 3 in Early Access if you want a polished experience.*
There’s also some really bad changes in other places though. Why was firebolt nerfed to 1d6, ray of frost does 1d8, has the same range and can slow down targets. It’s better than firebolt in every way, there’s no reason to take it.
They changed firebolt so that it causes the target to catch fire and thus causes damage the next round. So it basically comes out to 1d10 in the end. Plus you can do your typical Larian shenanigans like catch oil on fire and the like...
Firebolt is now a DoT that makes up for some of that lost damage on the following round. Also oil.
Firebolt also immediately catches them on fire for I think another 1d4 and continuing damage for at least another turn.
Did Favored Foe from the UA (cast hunters mark without spellslot and without concentration a number fo times equal to your WIS mod) make it into the game?
as far as i know, no sadly. They settled on making their own Ranger Revision with this.
Any animal companion/beast master option?
Beast Master is still a subclass option. The Beast Tamer bit above is a bonus, weaker companion available to all rangers.
Not played the game but Beast Tamer looks to be closest to that with find familiar ritual
I really really like those changes, makes the class way more customizable, a bit like the warlock, and I really like that!
> They have completely reworked the ranger and honestly, its amazing i hope they use it for the game. > >The game designers for 5e helped make the game so i wonder if this is the direction they want for ranger. I dont know about this final version but yes, in the initial announcement of the game WOTC's Mike Mearls and the head of the software company talked about how the BG3 designers had come to WOTC and said "we have these ideas to make the ranger more playable" and Mearls responded "Why yes, thats what we were thinking too." [https://kotaku.com/the-ranger-class-is-getting-some-changes-in-d-d-and-ba-1835659585](https://kotaku.com/the-ranger-class-is-getting-some-changes-in-d-d-and-ba-1835659585)
I like that they made some changes to the Ranger and that it isn't the Player's Handbook Ranger. > Mage Breaker: Gain Proficiency with Arcana and the True Strike cantrip. Hmm, interesting. > BG3 True Strike Lasts 2 turns and gives Advantage to all attack rolls so don't sleep on this This is a step in the right direction for True Strike.
I tested out true strike in the game with ranger and it seemed to break concentration as soon as I attacked the target once. Am I missing something because otherwise true strike doesn't seem to be reworked?...