@byrne20 5e works a very different way. The attack bonus, like the old thac0 is the same in every class. Weapon profs is feats and class features, very different. Fighters are the best at fighting, rangers gain useful spells, archery etc and roleplaying abilities. But every class in the 3,5-5e is advancing the same xp table so the ranger dont need superior xp to advance like in 2e.
I think possibly giving Ranger mastery over weapons but not high master or grand mastery might be a good idea. I don’t really know how 5th edition works though. Do we still have 5 points to put to get to grand master in 5th edition? Or is it weapon focus?
I think if the druid spell selection was better in BG2 rangers would be more appealing. It's also pretty silly that they don't see any progress in terms of their spell slots after level 16 (and only get to level 3 spells compared to the level 4 spells paladins get). Paladins by comparison gain spell slots until level 20 (they just get slightly slower spell access initially).
I think possibly giving Ranger mastery over weapons but not high master or grand mastery might be a good idea.
When Weapon Specialization was first introduced, Fighters AND Rangers could DOUBLE Specialize...
Also, remember that in BG GM is nerfed only granting an additional 0.5 APR rather than the full 1 APR it should (as in IWD). That extra additional 0.5 APR would make pure Fighters much better and help differentiate them more.
Yeah lvl 1 to 3 in Druid is crummy vs the more useful by far cleric 1 - 4, which can turn a paladin into a better fighter, or even summon meatshields to chip in. I hate Jaheira in BG1, since she takes forever to reach 4th lvl spells, and is a crummy fighter in the meantime.
Mastery would be a great buff imho, making rangers way more viable, and comparable to a buffed Paladin.
Also, remember that in BG GM is nerfed only granting an additional 0.5 APR rather than the full 1 APR it should (as in IWD). That extra additional 0.5 APR would make pure Fighters much better and help differentiate them more.
In the EE for the Baldur's Gate games, grand mastery is fully powered, including the +1 APR.
In the EE for the Baldur's Gate games, grand mastery is fully powered, including the +1 APR.
In BG:EE and BG2:EE, specialization gives +0.5 attacks per round and grand mastery gives an additional +0.5, for a total of +1 attack per round. In IWD:EE, specialization gives +0.5 APR and grandmastery gives an additional +1 APR, for a total of +1.5 attacks per round. This may be the source of confusion.
Also, remember that in BG GM is nerfed only granting an additional 0.5 APR rather than the full 1 APR it should (as in IWD). That extra additional 0.5 APR would make pure Fighters much better and help differentiate them more.
In the EE for the Baldur's Gate games, grand mastery is fully powered, including the +1 APR.
Combat & Tactics disagrees: "Grandmasters gain one additional attack per round above and beyond a specialist's rate of attacks for their level..." (pg 76)
Icewind Dale does this correctly; Baldur's Gate does not
Also, remember that in BG GM is nerfed only granting an additional 0.5 APR rather than the full 1 APR it should (as in IWD). That extra additional 0.5 APR would make pure Fighters much better and help differentiate them more.
In the EE for the Baldur's Gate games, grand mastery is fully powered, including the +1 APR.
Combat & Tactics disagrees: "Grandmasters gain one additional attack per round above and beyond a specialist's rate of attacks for their level..." (pg 76)
Icewind Dale does this correctly; Baldur's Gate does not
Its balance reasons. The original devs toned down grandmastery in bg2 to balance the gap between fighters(berserkers ophell ) and rangers/paladins. In bgee its upgrade back to bg1 level but the true pnp is in iwd.
Thats one from the lots of incosistencies what adnd 2 optional rules have. If they just use basic rules everythint should be more balanced ( like just simple specialization ).
Yeah the rule set in bg-iwd games is clumsy and teeming with bad houserules.
But at least the story is one of the best of all rp games.
Yea in 2e pnp only single class fighters can even specialize in a weapon (in combat and tactics there is an option to give fighter multiclasses, rangers and paladins weapon expertise, but that doesn't grant them the Thac0 or damage bonus). Grandmastery in this case was specifically balanced around the idea that you would be a single class fighter and (unless you dual classed at either level 9 or level 12*) not a dual class character. You had to spend years training and hunt down a weapon master for your choice of weapon.
Also you couldn't get mastery in a weapon until at least level 5.
Also (and this isn't related to anything anyone has said I just learned it and its kind of neat) according to core 2E rules bows actually took 2 proficiency points to get you from proficiency into specialization. Bow specialists also didn't get the extra 1/2 attack.
* Its not really clear if you could hold back on using your level 3 point for it until after you were level 5.
Also, remember that in BG GM is nerfed only granting an additional 0.5 APR rather than the full 1 APR it should (as in IWD). That extra additional 0.5 APR would make pure Fighters much better and help differentiate them more.
In the EE for the Baldur's Gate games, grand mastery is fully powered, including the +1 APR.
Combat & Tactics disagrees: "Grandmasters gain one additional attack per round above and beyond a specialist's rate of attacks for their level..." (pg 76)
Icewind Dale does this correctly; Baldur's Gate does not
Its balance reasons. The original devs toned down grandmastery in bg2 to balance the gap between fighters(berserkers ophell ) and rangers/paladins. In bgee its upgrade back to bg1 level but the true pnp is in iwd.
Thats one from the lots of incosistencies what adnd 2 optional rules have. If they just use basic rules everythint should be more balanced ( like just simple specialization ).
Possible, although that is just your opinion. The implementation was changed between Baldur's Gate & BG2. Now was that for balance or due to the engine upgrade? Nevertheless, GM was so nerfed in BG2 it was reduced to irrelevance. The AD&D2 optional rule is internally consistent and greatly improves fighters - hardly the most OP class.
As the thread has been dedicated to how underpowered Rangers are, there are better ways to improve them than nerfing Fighters as seen in IWD.
Also, remember that in BG GM is nerfed only granting an additional 0.5 APR rather than the full 1 APR it should (as in IWD). That extra additional 0.5 APR would make pure Fighters much better and help differentiate them more.
In the EE for the Baldur's Gate games, grand mastery is fully powered, including the +1 APR.
Combat & Tactics disagrees: "Grandmasters gain one additional attack per round above and beyond a specialist's rate of attacks for their level..." (pg 76)
Icewind Dale does this correctly; Baldur's Gate does not
Its balance reasons. The original devs toned down grandmastery in bg2 to balance the gap between fighters(berserkers ophell ) and rangers/paladins. In bgee its upgrade back to bg1 level but the true pnp is in iwd.
Thats one from the lots of incosistencies what adnd 2 optional rules have. If they just use basic rules everythint should be more balanced ( like just simple specialization ).
Possible, although that is just your opinion. The implementation was changed between Baldur's Gate & BG2. Now was that for balance or due to the engine upgrade? Nevertheless, GM was so nerfed in BG2 it was reduced to irrelevance. The AD&D2 optional rule is internally consistent and greatly improves fighters - hardly the most OP class.
As the thread has been dedicated to how underpowered Rangers are, there are better ways to improve them than nerfing Fighters as seen in IWD.
Adnd2 optional rules never were consistent. A lots of illogical staff here, what further editions try to upgrade.
Engine upgrade ? Not really, in bg1 you cant reach gm so it doesnt matter, but in bg2 yes you can.
my ideal ranger woud have spell progression similar to IWD:EE (HoW), tweaked to just continue the P&P (standard vanilla) progression, with max 3 slots per spell level, spell power capped at 9, up to spell level 6, but limited to animal and plant spheres (no healing and weather like in divine remix).
Also, remember that in BG GM is nerfed only granting an additional 0.5 APR rather than the full 1 APR it should (as in IWD). That extra additional 0.5 APR would make pure Fighters much better and help differentiate them more.
In the EE for the Baldur's Gate games, grand mastery is fully powered, including the +1 APR.
Combat & Tactics disagrees: "Grandmasters gain one additional attack per round above and beyond a specialist's rate of attacks for their level..." (pg 76)
Icewind Dale does this correctly; Baldur's Gate does not
Its balance reasons. The original devs toned down grandmastery in bg2 to balance the gap between fighters(berserkers ophell ) and rangers/paladins. In bgee its upgrade back to bg1 level but the true pnp is in iwd.
Thats one from the lots of incosistencies what adnd 2 optional rules have. If they just use basic rules everythint should be more balanced ( like just simple specialization ).
Possible, although that is just your opinion. The implementation was changed between Baldur's Gate & BG2. Now was that for balance or due to the engine upgrade? Nevertheless, GM was so nerfed in BG2 it was reduced to irrelevance. The AD&D2 optional rule is internally consistent and greatly improves fighters - hardly the most OP class.
As the thread has been dedicated to how underpowered Rangers are, there are better ways to improve them than nerfing Fighters as seen in IWD.
Adnd2 optional rules never were consistent. A lots of illogical staff here, what further editions try to upgrade.
Engine upgrade ? Not really, in bg1 you cant reach gm so it doesnt matter, but in bg2 yes you can.
The entire '2.5' Ed Options are certainly more consistent than the core rules and you should try BG1 dual-classing...
Comments
https://www.dndbeyond.com/classes/fighter
When Weapon Specialization was first introduced, Fighters AND Rangers could DOUBLE Specialize...
Also, remember that in BG GM is nerfed only granting an additional 0.5 APR rather than the full 1 APR it should (as in IWD). That extra additional 0.5 APR would make pure Fighters much better and help differentiate them more.
Mastery would be a great buff imho, making rangers way more viable, and comparable to a buffed Paladin.
In BG:EE and BG2:EE, specialization gives +0.5 attacks per round and grand mastery gives an additional +0.5, for a total of +1 attack per round. In IWD:EE, specialization gives +0.5 APR and grandmastery gives an additional +1 APR, for a total of +1.5 attacks per round. This may be the source of confusion.
Combat & Tactics disagrees: "Grandmasters gain one additional attack per round above and beyond a specialist's rate of attacks for their level..." (pg 76)
Icewind Dale does this correctly; Baldur's Gate does not
Its balance reasons. The original devs toned down grandmastery in bg2 to balance the gap between fighters(berserkers ophell
Thats one from the lots of incosistencies what adnd 2 optional rules have. If they just use basic rules everythint should be more balanced ( like just simple specialization ).
Yeah the rule set in bg-iwd games is clumsy and teeming with bad houserules.
But at least the story is one of the best of all rp games.
Also you couldn't get mastery in a weapon until at least level 5.
Also (and this isn't related to anything anyone has said I just learned it and its kind of neat) according to core 2E rules bows actually took 2 proficiency points to get you from proficiency into specialization. Bow specialists also didn't get the extra 1/2 attack.
* Its not really clear if you could hold back on using your level 3 point for it until after you were level 5.
Possible, although that is just your opinion. The implementation was changed between Baldur's Gate & BG2. Now was that for balance or due to the engine upgrade? Nevertheless, GM was so nerfed in BG2 it was reduced to irrelevance. The AD&D2 optional rule is internally consistent and greatly improves fighters - hardly the most OP class.
As the thread has been dedicated to how underpowered Rangers are, there are better ways to improve them than nerfing Fighters as seen in IWD.
Adnd2 optional rules never were consistent. A lots of illogical staff here, what further editions try to upgrade.
Engine upgrade ? Not really, in bg1 you cant reach gm so it doesnt matter, but in bg2 yes you can.
The entire '2.5' Ed Options are certainly more consistent than the core rules and you should try BG1 dual-classing...