rangers, why bad

Remove all ads!

hey all. im newish to iwd2, but ive played both bg games and i play an ad&d campaign with my friends reguraly, and rangers would have to be one of my fav classes, why does everyone think they are so bad in iwd2, i just dont understand.

 

They gain feats slower than fighters do
They dont have any bonusses with the bow like they have in BG2.
They dont get the feat 3rd slot in armor prof.
Natural enemies only gets bonus to damage, not to hit IIRC
Animal Empathy is not used at all or maybe 2 times in the game
Tracking is kind os useless, you see what enemies there are in the area , once you face them

Well, I just cant think anything good about them

 

@Crom the Powerfull
Only the Archer kit had bonuses with bows in BG2, IIRC.

Good things about rangers:
1- They get ambidexterity for free
2- They get some minor spells (try beast claw)
3- They can hide in shadows and scout
4- They are a very appropriate class to play in IW2, if you like role playing your characters.

 

Like with paladins, most of rangers' benefits rely heavily upon character roleplaying and roleplaying opportunities, and that is hard to implement in a video game.

 

ok then, so is it worth playing them in iwd2? any ideas on how to make them stronger?

 

Most people use the Ranger class as a mix-in. For example, I have a Wizard in my party who uses dual short swords. So instead of taking the two feats to allow this w/ minimum penalties, I mixed in a level of Ranger. IMO, it works well with a Wizard because of the Arcane Failure % brought on by armor and shields.

Crueak Arborshate
Male Drow Chaotic Evil
Rogue 2/Ranger 1/Fighter 2/Wizard X
STR 10 DEX 20 CON 10 INT 20 WIS 10 CHA 10
Weapons: Dual Small Blades (Piercing), Quaterstaff (Bludgeoning), Bow (Missile (Piercing))

 

Wizard with two levels in the Rogue class (starting the game as level 1 Rogue for the skill points) is probably the best idea. Maybe one level of Barbarian if you aren't Lawful, for the speed increase.

For more advanced (or daring) players, perhaps a Monk(1+)/Ranger would be a good idea, with lots of DEX and WIS, also using items like that ring which increases WIS by 5. Every God Ring or some such name. And Ranger spells aren't that bad...

Fighter(4)/Ranger(x) instead of a DEX-based fighter also makes sense. Could even go Rogue(3)/Fighter(4)/Ranger(x), or even Rogue(3)/Barbarian(3)/Fighter(4)/Ranger(x).

 

It basically comes down to the fact that you shouldn't spend more than 1 level of ranger, just to profit from the 2 extra feats. Rangers gain feats slower, but the 2 xtra feats complement that.

 

Personally i have only had a good elf ranger in IWD one and thats about all he was a great archer but it seemed that they are the same as fighters just called rangers and dont get as many feats.

 

I just found that there were no benefits to a ranger. A fighter had much more going for them (weapon specialisation etc), and the ranger skills, like tracking etc, just had no place.

 

The only thing a ranger gets that a fighter cannot get are some crappy spells and favoured enemies ( not that much ) the feats they get for free ? With the surplus of feats you get as fighter, you can take them also.
Tracking is hard to implement into a game, its quite useless I agree

 

yeah the only place you need tracking is in the lonleywood forest to find your way through and thats about it.