GameBanshee Forums

Well, I like the ranger. But I nothiced that more than 50% of players play the paladin.
The paladin is an interresting class but I don't see why he's better than ranger (exept the stronghold).

So the question who's better the ranger or the paladin? And why?

I mean the Carsomyr (But in ToB there are better weapons than the Holly Avenger).

I tend to play paladins more often because of the kits:

Inquisitor: Mage's nightmare
Undead Hunter: Immune to level drain
Cavalier: Nice immunities and THACO bonuses

I also like archers, though not as much with the ToB changes.

I think you're exagerating here - 50 % of all players do not play a paladin constantly. I'm sure many try them once, though, just as they do other classes. I think Carsomyr is one the reasons people argue for the greatness of paladins. Carsomyr rests a very good weapon in ToB. Personally I identify better with rangers. And as to stronghold, the Moon Dog Figurine is really nice.

For me, personally (since I've played both the Ranger and Paladin before), I'd pick the Ranger.

Although both of them are fighters with an 'edge', they are pretty good individually.

I chose Ranger mainly because they have more Cleric spells (useful to heal yourself and others, so that your main Cleric can have all those nifty offensive spells, etc). Despite it's restrictions (which is their main disadvantage.. big time! haha), they've got spells. I guess that's the main and ONLY reason! haha.. their Stronghold quest ain't that good (the moon figurine? er... alright I guess).

Nope, assuming 50 % of all the players playing a Paladin is not really true, actually, the Paladin class isn't that popular at all... A lot more people are really fond of playing a ranger instead. Neither the Paladin nor the Ranger are high on my "coolest class" list, never played with either of them, but I think the Paladin is the better of the two when it comes to abilities, and the Ranger the better of the two when it comes to roleplaying value.

actualy I tend to think the paladin is a bit more powerful than the ranger (especialy the kits) but I find Rangers so much more fun to play.

no ranger kit can compete with the abilities of the paladin kits (imunities , etc.)

having said that my favorite class of all time is the Archer even if it is not the most powerful.

Rangers can dual to RAnger Cleric (That is a Darn Powerful Dual- Druid and cleric spells)

beast master is perhaps(IMHO) the lest powerful class but is still damn fun to play. Perhaps I just feel i ca roleplay a ranger better. - Come on who's gona be the most fun that chaotic good archer (ala Robin Hood) or the such up lawful Good Paladin.

anyway my advice
Their both good play both - But start with a ranger.

Yeah, the only thing that I hate in paladins, it's his alignement.

Dont Paladins also have very good saving throws?.
And a ranger must be of good alignment too, so I cant really see any difference there.

From a role-playing perspective, chaotic good is so much more fun than lawful good. But there are a lot of people in PnP that wouldn't give up their Paladins.

Ranger you have the stalker

It's exactly that, I always played as a Paladin first for BG because they are very powerful, my favourite is Cavalier just because he seems like the more fightery type, he gets in close kicks the crap outta something and eats lunch all the while wooing beautiful laydeez!

Chaotic good is my favorite alignment (it fits me in real life)

Rangers and Thiefs tend to fit my alignment choice nicely, so naturally I choose Rangers over Paladins.

And who says Carsomyr is for Paladins! My fighter/thief likes Carsomyr

I'll take a Paladin over a Ranger anyday. Rangers just don't seem to keep my interest in a game.

Man, theres just something about a Undead Hunter named Simon Belmont weilding a flail that REALLY gets my blood goin'!!!!!

[ 08-07-2001: Message edited by: Mr. Clark ]

IMO, this is a matter of personal tastes only . I've played ranger and paladin both, so I definitely prefer paladins - as well in role-playing aspects as in combat abilities. The best thing regarding paladins is that paladin kits have very useful immunities... And, of course, Order of Most Radiant Hearts headquaters look much better than that poor ranger cabin .
Honestly, from all my playthruogh the most involving was that one with UndeadHunter. Unfortunately, paladins can be only humans...

Iv played both..well im in the middle of my paladin career,i would probaly go with paladin cause the kits are all realy sweet..but rangers are easier to relate to in a way..paladins are such goodie goodies and its annoying but i like the responsibilite(if thats how you spell it)of the job so i would go with paladin

Hi Raven
RPG-wise I HATE playing the goody-two-shoes paladin manners . In BG2 you already have the best paladin kit as a NPC (Keldorn), so I'd go for a Ranger. Archer is fine, only limit is you can't dual ...(in ToB, in SoA you could become Cleric).

PDF,

Who says you can't dual an Archer? An archer is only a ranger kit, and I know for a *fact* (in ToB no less), that you can dual a Ranger into a Cleric with sufficient Str and Wis.

-Polaris

Polaris,
About Ranger not dualling, I read numerous posts and it *seemed* that Archers and Stalkers could not dual anymore to Clerics...
Perhaps I was confused , in this case sorry to post cr*ppy lies