Skip to content

unearthed arcana ranger changes

Pharaun159Pharaun159 Member Posts: 41
in Baldur's Gate: Siege of Dragonspear
Am i the only one who would love to see these changes implemented into bg? 2d6 hit dice and no more bothersome spells, plus spirit companion and stealth skirmishing? Would be a hugely fun class. especially with high level hide in plain site!

Comments

  • rapsam2003rapsam2003 Member Posts: 1,636
    Then make a mod for it...
  • DanacmDanacm Member Posts: 951
    The ranger class bad implementation is well known, and other than rp view there is no reason to play a ranger in this form. Its a bad designed class, any change would be welcome.
    Animal companion is a nice addition, and the road what beamdog follows with the new 3e kits and classes its a realistic option. And like the more favored enemy per level alone can give some uniqe feeling to the ranger.
  • DJKajuruDJKajuru Member Posts: 3,300
    edited July 2016
    Why do you say that the ranger class is badly implemented? They are fighters that can hide in shadows and dual wield since 1st level, which makes them a very strong choice.
    Post edited by DJKajuru on
  • ThacoBellThacoBell Member Posts: 12,235
    Don't forget the smattering of divine spells.
  • DanacmDanacm Member Posts: 951
    There is no other reason than rp (but yes its enough if u like being a ranger), to pick ranger not a pure fighter. And its not about kits, just pure ranger vs pure fighter. Racial enemy, low lvl spells, dual wield lvl 1, stealth, charm animal are nice rp abilities but technically useless in the game and bad designed. The paladin has own unique usege why to give up advanced weapon specialization ane fast leveling, layonhnds, better low lvl spells, turn undead, +2 saves. But ranger is a slow leveling gimped fighter.
  • rapsam2003rapsam2003 Member Posts: 1,636
    @Danacm: In 2E, it basically was, yeah.
  • JouniJouni Member Posts: 50
    The 2E rangers were specialists in tracking, hunting, and guerrilla warfare. They're out of their element in open combat, though much less than fighters in the wilderness. As all fighting in the Baldur's Gate series is open combat at extremely close range, rangers are rather pointless in the games.
  • DanacmDanacm Member Posts: 951
    The tracking, surviving the strong points of the pnp rangers are not implemented, or not as useful as in pnp.
  • JediMindTrixJediMindTrix Member Posts: 305
    edited July 2016
    Free dual-wielding is useful in early game but with limited specializations you could eventually acquire it anyway.
    Stealth is useful for scouting - but there are other classes that can do it, and then thieves can do it better (and backstab).
    The low level spells are of extremely limited use without mods. With Spell Revisions, they're not so bad.
    Limited Specializations.
    Racial enemy is situational at best. A full-pipped fighter is only going to be slightly worse in the To Hit roll than a ranger against their favored enemy.
    IIRC, dual-classing to cleric is no longer possible in EE or the spell tables don't allow for druid/cleric spells to be mixed together.
    I'm not sure if Charm Animal scales but I don't recall many animals in ToB.

    Yes, pure Ranger's aren't really that good.
    Their kits though, are pretty ballin'. I'm fond of Archers and Stalkers.
  • DJKajuruDJKajuru Member Posts: 3,300
    Danacm said:

    There is no other reason than rp (but yes its enough if u like being a ranger), to pick ranger not a pure fighter. And its not about kits, just pure ranger vs pure fighter. Racial enemy, low lvl spells, dual wield lvl 1, stealth, charm animal are nice rp abilities but technically useless in the game and bad designed. The paladin has own unique usege why to give up advanced weapon specialization ane fast leveling, layonhnds, better low lvl spells, turn undead, +2 saves. But ranger is a slow leveling gimped fighter.

    It really puzzle me to read that stealth, racial enemy and dual wielding are technically useless in the game.How come?



  • DanacmDanacm Member Posts: 951
    Stealth is nice to have, but there are classes that do it better, and without backstab why bother it, and there is better scout options, like sanctuary cleric, wizard eye etc. You also need to wear leather armor, but other than rp reason, why wear leather armor with a quasi front liner. And a full plate armored bruiser who go and hack and slash, dont need stealth in combat in a game which is full of fights. Racial enemy is too situational, and a grandmastered fighter is slightly worse in terms of thaco but against any foes, its just better to give the ranger mastery in weapons. Dual wield, yes its strong, its not useless, but maybe the only adventage early on, but mitigated fast enough to a fighter be stronger choice. Think about a ranger who is good choice for lvl 1-5 and a fighter who is minimum equal but better after lvl 6 at any area.
  • FardragonFardragon Member Posts: 4,511
    Personally I think faithfulness to PnP rules is far more important than making sure all classes are equal.

    Obsession with class balance sucks the life out of games. (PoE foe example).
  • DanacmDanacm Member Posts: 951
    But th ranger loose the main power from pnp in this case. Yes class power equal not needes in pnp, but yes it needed in a battle game like bg. But thats another topic.
  • FardragonFardragon Member Posts: 4,511
    edited July 2016
    Main power? Tracking, you mean? No reason you can't include that in dialogue. Having a "main power" which isn't useful for the adventure you are engaged in is a regular occurrence in PnP.

    Baldur's Gate isn't a "battle game". It's a roleplaying game. If you want a battle game, Diabalo is in that direction =>
  • DanacmDanacm Member Posts: 951
    Its just opinions, as everybody has. There arent better opinions, its other opinions.
  • DJKajuruDJKajuru Member Posts: 3,300
    First, from a BG1 point of view.
    Danacm said:

    Stealth is nice to have, but there are classes that do it better, and without backstab why bother it, and there is better scout options, like sanctuary cleric, wizard eye etc.

    Yes, you could have Imoen or montaron develop their stealth skills for scouting, but that is usually secondary to trap removal. Sanctuary and invisibility are good options , but it doesn't make a ranger's stealth less useful. Wizard eye is not a low level spell. If a ranger can do that to perform an important tactical move such as scouting, and a fighter can't , it doesn't mean that the fighter is better, just that they have different roles in the party.
    Danacm said:

    You also need to wear leather armor, but other than rp reason, why wear leather armor with a quasi front liner. And a full plate armored bruiser who go and hack and slash, dont need stealth in combat in a game which is full of fights.

    At first or second level you probably won't be able to charge kobold commandos with your armor bruiser without decent backup (there's a good chance your fighter will be shot to death, and a low level party is unlikely to possess full plate mail, which is quite expensive ). Once again, classic rangers who dual wield and shoot arrows have a different role in the party.
    Danacm said:

    Racial enemy is too situational, and a grandmastered fighter is slightly worse in terms of thaco but against any foes, its just better to give the ranger mastery in weapons. .

    Kivan's racial enemy are ogres. At low level that +3 thac0 and damage represent a HUGE difference against the random Ogre berserker who drops by (or several). Minsc's racial enemy are Gnolls, which means that there's a possibility of killing an average gnoll with one shot, and these bastards usually walk in groups (or packs?) , so killing them fast is a walk to survival. It may be situational, but it does affect most encounters in the game unless choose a very rare racial enemy. Besides, fighters don't reach grandmastery until at least level 6 .
    Danacm said:

    Dual wield, yes its strong, its not useless, but maybe the only adventage early on, but mitigated fast enough to a fighter be stronger choice. Think about a ranger who is good choice for lvl 1-5 and a fighter who is minimum equal but better after lvl 6 at any area.

    Still talking about low level characters, dual wielding early in the game gives you a thac0 penalty that may represent a problem against strong enemies. Half the game (BG1) are levels 1-5 with a 6 people party, so guys like Kivan help a lot as backup shooting arrows and hiding in shadows while Khalid or whoever you take as fighter embraces the frontlines. I do not agree that they're better or worse because they have different roles. A low level party without a scout or ranged attack for backup may have to rely only on their fighters' AC and thac0 , which is not that good until you level up a bit more.

    From level 6 and on all fighting classes become very powerful with the right equipment and tactics, but a ranger can stealth his way throughout the whole saga and gain the upperhand in most fights. Of course, there will be enemies who can see invibility, just like there are mages who can protect themselves from magical weapons and make the fighter look like a fool trying to hit them.
  • DanacmDanacm Member Posts: 951
    @DJKajuru yes we have different point of view and playstyle, and its not bad. Differencies of opinions are welcome.
  • FardragonFardragon Member Posts: 4,511
    I think the thing is, a varient ranger would be fine as a kit, but I wouldn't want to change the base class further away from standard 2nd edition rules.
  • SCARY_WIZARDSCARY_WIZARD Member Posts: 1,438
    Fardragon said:

    Personally I think faithfulness to PnP rules is far more important than making sure all classes are equal.

    Obsession with class balance sucks the life out of games. (PoE foe example).

    Signed. Class balance is better for player versus player games, I think.
Sign In or Register to comment.

2024 Overhaul Games, a division of Beamdog. © 2024 Hasbro, Inc. All Rights Reserved. Baldur's Gate, Dungeons & Dragons, D&D, Forgotten Realms, Baldur's Gate, Wizards of the Coast and their logos are trademarks of Wizards of the Coast LLC in the U.S.A. and other countries, and are used with permission. Hasbro and its logo are trademarks of Hasbro, Inc. and are used with permission. © 1998 BioWare Corp. All Rights Reserved. BioWare, the BioWare Infinity Engine and the BioWare logo are trademarks of Bioware Corp. Black Isle Studios and the Black Isle Studios logo are trademarks of Interplay Entertainment Corp. Atari and the Atari logo are trademarks owned by Atari Interactive, Inc. All other trademarks are the property of their respective owners.