Pure Ranger Class... any good anymore???

Lintelyg · Post by **Lintelyg** » Mon Aug 05, 2002 4:29 am

I've been reading through the posts of the forum, and I've noticed that everyone is SOOOOO bent on duall or multi-classing the Ranger... WHY I ask! Is the ranger class worse than i had imagined it to be? (I've alway played an elven ranger) Or does it just plain suck??? If it were up to me i would never dual or mult-class him. In the 3E rules you even get to keep on choosing new racial enemys, which gives him the edge over a few baddies. Besides: I would keep my ranger pure for the role-playing reason... who ever heard of a rouge/ranger??? The ranger is a protector of good, not some backalley thief... but this is just all personal opinion... and I'd love to hear yours...

/-\lastor · Post by **/-\lastor** » Mon Aug 05, 2002 6:21 am

Actually the ranger isn't a "protector of good" it's just a guy who likes living in the wilderness.
But for you original question: the ranger is quite a good class, the 3 bonus feats (ambidex, 2 weapon fighting and track) at first level and favoured enemy make him a very powerfull fighter at low level. But the point is that a ranger starts out good but doesn't progress, the fighter for example constantly gets bonus feats which give him the edge at higher levels, a ranger simply doesn't have that edge.
I admit the increasing number of favoured enemies is nice (as well as improved 2 weapon fighting) but they don't compensate for the lack of progress.

And for multiclassing to a ranger: it's well easier to take 1 level ranger then waste 6 levels of feats on fighting with two weapons.

fable · Post by **fable** » Mon Aug 05, 2002 7:25 am

I think Alastor's point is well taken. I can easily envision my thief taking a level of ranger to fight well with two daggers or short swords, but that's it. Rangers need a development goal for the long haul, and I don't feel that under 3E they have one.

Impaler987 · Post by **Impaler987** » Mon Aug 05, 2002 2:01 pm

I agree that a pure ranger is quite a bit weaker than it was in 2E, but simply start as a rogue, take 3 levels in it and devote the rest to ranger levels and you've got one killer and very versatile character. In Icewind Dale II, Rangers will be able to cast up to 6th level spells (including Insect Plague as a 5th level spell, hahaha, I looked it up at PlanetBaldursGate.com), so advancing extra ranger levels will be worth it here. The spell list is probably in the archives by now.

fable · Post by **fable** » Mon Aug 05, 2002 2:22 pm

@Impaler, a thief begins with 0% ability in their skills. Each level, you get to add more; so if you stop developing a thief after level 3, you'll find your thief skills severely limited. I tried a thief in the beta. When he was level 2, he couldn't even hide in shadows, and pickpocketing was impossible.

Lintelyg · Post by **Lintelyg** » Mon Aug 05, 2002 6:51 pm

OK...
it seems you guys have convinced me... but I still need your advice: since I'm more of the fighter type, how would propose I create my fighter??? Like how much levels of ranger for the dual-wielding should i take before switching over to fighter??? Or I was thinking maybe to Barbarian??? Is this even possible while using an elf??? (I am not very familiar with 3E rules) if anyone could educate me on the subject, it would be a lot of help... tnx

fable · Post by **fable** » Mon Aug 05, 2002 7:09 pm

Dual-wielding is a feat, so once you've got it, you've got it.

As soon as you take a level in ranger, you can dual-wield. There's no question of developing it.

HighLordDave · Post by **HighLordDave** » Mon Aug 05, 2002 7:17 pm

Originally posted by fable
Dual-wielding is a feat, so once you've got it, you've got it. As soon as you take a level in ranger, you can dual-wield. There's no question of developing it.

But can't rangers only dual-weild as if they had both the dual-weilding feat and ambidexterity feat if they are wearing light armour? Under the standard D&D3 rules, if your ranger puts on medium or heavy armour, you will lose those feats and incur the normal penalties for dual-weilding, and I think this will carry over into IWD2. In BG2, the type of armour you wear does not factor into a ranger's ability to dual-weild without the standard penalties, but I think they have altered the engine to take this new rule into account.

Lintelyg · Post by **Lintelyg** » Mon Aug 05, 2002 10:50 pm

Well, that sucks...
I guess I'll have to just stick with either a pure fighter or ranger then, cuz what's a fighter without heavy armour????

Volcane666 · Post by **Volcane666** » Tue Aug 06, 2002 1:12 pm

Originally posted by Lintelyg
Well, that sucks...
I guess I'll have to just stick with either a pure fighter or ranger then, cuz what's a fighter without heavy armour????

You can have a light quick footed fighter that could just as deadly..... like a musketeer or a kensai under 2ed, use your dexterity ac bonus rather than heavy armour!