Fighter or Ranger?

[Stilgar]

Exept for the dual-wielding why would you choose a ranger over a fighter?? The stealth ability is hardly used, and the same gous for charm annimal. (and the few druid spells)

[Astafas]

The main reason would be that you *want to* play a Ranger and not a Fighter. Then the two classes do show some differencies as to for example kits and quests/strongholds. No Fighter can backstab as a Stalker or use a bow as an Archer. Neither will he/she have a faithful Moon Dog and/or Familiar by his side.

[ 12-18-2001: Message edited by: Astafas ]

[Obsidian]

Dont forget druid spells.
They can be useful. Also, it really depends on what you want to play. Rangers are protectors, fighters do whatever

[Ode to a Grasshopper]

Speaking for myself, I went an Archer for a couple of reasons. Firstly, I like playing Elves, and 19 Dex is a must for Archers. Second, IMHO Rangers in general are just more inherently stylish than warriors.

[Bruce Lee]

I think the question should be, why play a fighter over a ranger. Stealth is very important imo. I want all my characters to be able to stealth in some way. And like Astafas said, you probably play ranger because you want to...

[Whailor]

I personally would play a fighter. Rangers in no way are "stylish" fighters in my eyes. They are wannabe-warriors who should stick to their bows heh..

Depends what you want to play, who do you want to be. As a ranger, sneak around and behind your enemies, backstab them and shoot from a range?

Or be a fighter, who's sight will make enemies tremble. Not to be tied down to some lousy rules a la "you can do this and you cannot do that". Do what you want. Do you want to live in rodent-filled shack or a real keep? Do you want to go into the battle always from the front doors, kick it off it's hinges, yell "Surrender fools!" and charge in, and to be the only one left standing to also leave the room? Do you really need some pooch next to you to be even half as viable fighter as you would be on your own?

Fighter all the way. Berserker on top, the Enrage is pretty handy ability.

[Stilgar]

But just a plain fighter against a plain ranger (no kits).
Why go for the ranger (exspeccialy in BG1 where you can't cast any druid spells until the end of the game). Stealth is something i hardly use cause i rather wear a metal armour then a leather. And you can't specialise in weapons.

The extra dual-wielding added in BG2 makes it a little more attractive to play as one, but they'll never be as good as a fighter

[sigurd]

Rangers are more a chicken-like group, since they stealth and backstab, or use a bow instead of melee combat.

A real fighter would probably laugh at them, they cant even manage alone, but need animals to help them.

And the most important thing is that they are goodaligned, they must obey certain rules, figters can do whatever they want, and their kits rules, at least 2 of them.

[Astafas]

Originally posted by Stilgar:
<STRONG>But just a plain fighter against a plain ranger (no kits).
Why go for the ranger (exspeccialy in BG1 where you can't cast any druid spells until the end of the game). Stealth is something i hardly use cause i rather wear a metal armour then a leather. And you can't specialise in weapons.

The extra dual-wielding added in BG2 makes it a little more attractive to play as one, but they'll never be as good as a fighter</STRONG>

Because there is more to roleplaying than simply choosing the "strongest" class.

[Stilgar]

But do rangers get better saving throws or tac0 then fighters?
Or are they just the same?

[Aegnor]

Yeah, if you don't like stealth, don't play a ranger...

The main disadvantage I see is that you can't get past specialized in weapons. That will be important to some people.

As for charm animal, no, it isn't a huge deal but it does come in handy from time to time...I'm thinking of the beastmaster in the CC, for instance, or outside in the druid grove area.

One of my fav characters was a stalker who wore the shadowdragon armour and dual-wielded katanas and longswords. I used stealth constantly with that characer, and backstabs sometimes did close to 100hp damage. So it worked for me...now, with ToB and the "special abilities", I imagine a high level ranger stacking "armor of faith" spells with "hardiness" would be one tough cookie. DOn't know about that "tracking" ability - is it actually useful?

Roleplaying aside, it seems to come down to a question of weapons expertise vs. stealth. So take your pick.

[Xyx]

The difference between Specialization and Grand Mastery is pretty minor. Then again, Ranger spells suck.

The Powergamin'(TM) niceties are in the Kits.

[dopplehanger]

I mean maybe its just the NPC but i have gone through with a barbarian and a str8 fighter with minsc as my only party member and i saw that minsc was a much better fighter he kix ass

[Obsidian]

I dont know where everyone gets this ranger backstabbing thing from, its only 1 kit that can use it.
Ranger is a mentality, fighter is a way of lige.

[Aegnor]

Originally posted by Knight Errant:
<STRONG>I dont know where everyone gets this ranger backstabbing thing from, its only 1 kit that can use it.
Ranger is a mentality, fighter is a way of lige.</STRONG>

Yes, sorry, I didn't mean to imply that all rangers get to backstab...

It would seem to me, however, that if you're willing to have your ranger wear leathers in order to use stealth, you might as well take a stalker kit and get the backstabbing ability, too. With the kits, the pure ranger seems to be useful only for those who would dual to cleric later on.

Oh, and don't forget the racial enemy thing. Seems that's the only reason Minsc is a ranger, so he can whack vampires, though IMO he'd be so much better as a barbarian.

[Ode to a Grasshopper]

They are wannabe-warriors who should stick to their bows heh..

I do stick to my bows. I'm an Archer.

Do you want to live in rodent-filled shack or a real keep?

You know what they say. The bigger the house, the smaller the...

Bear in mind that if you dual a Ranger to a Cleric you get both Druid and Cleric spells. But as Astafas said, in the end it all comes down to personal preference. I far prefer role-playing over power-gaming, so I went a Ranger.

[RobertC]

At higher levels all melee's can be lumped into one category except for Kensai and monks because their abilities for level increase are more dramatic. Rangers, fighters, and paladins all will have negative THAC0's in ToB. Damn, a bard will have a negative THAC0. What is important is being to be able to get past your enemies resistances, not their AC. Stealth is not that important in the late stages of the game. Buy invis potions, ring of air, invis ring, improved invis ring, etc... Have weapons with all forms of elemental damage. Poison weapons, dispelling weapons, etc.... Your ability to hit many many times becomes important. GWW accomplishes this, but so does the ring of Gaxx and other items for haste. I believe a barbarian with multiple weapon abilities and dual wield is better than a fighter with GM in a single weapon and specializied in another with dual wield for game purposes. Being able to go from CF to CF to FoA to GSG, etc.. Is VERY useful. You may say AC is a concern... BS. Ice dragon scale is plate AC and provides good cold resistance. Have you ever used holy might and raged? 25 str, 22 dex, 24 con with all the immunities. No need for a str belt, no need for CF's 25 str (still nice to have hehe). A dwarven barbarian with the right gear is just about nigh unstoppable. Hell, any barbarian is. I haven't run a barbarian through completely solo yet (3 party members is my fave number) becaue I like the party interaction and romances. I wonder who would win between a monk and barbarian at high levels... Would be close. Anyways, I will probably get flamed for this huge rambling paragraph, but oh well...