Rangers: Stealthy or tanks?

Remove all ads!

Here are a few things I thing that most of us are forgetting when comparing a Ranger, Paladin, or Fighter. First off a Fighter doesn't have any true special abilities expect that he or she can become a master of weapons.

A Paladin is a similar to a Cleric/Fighter but is able to use swords and cast other spells that will help the cause of his god.

A Ranger is similar to a Figther/Thief, expect that his main purpose is to act as a guide, scout or to protect the local community when endangered.

That is why when I play BG1 I play as a Ranger I use my protaginist for scouting as much as possible.

For instance I am playing BG1 right now. My group consist of Abdel, Imoen, Viconcia, Jaheria, Minsc, and Edwin. I use Jaheria and Minsc as my front line fighters and Abdel as the scout/archer.

Since Abdel is the scout for the group he will be the one wearing the boots of stealth and receiving the tome of Dex.

 

Rangers also gain some amount of spells eventually (level 8, so you need totsc). And as someone mentioned earlier, since they dont have to split their stealth with other abilities, they generally make better scouts than thieves (thieves usually have find/detect trapps, open locks maxed before even considering stealth)

So if you do not use stealth you'r loosing out on one of the coolest things about rangers in this game good archers that can take up whatever position they want in most battles. like forexample Kivan + coran a screen behind the enemy mage, usually means hes dead very fast. Can also be doubled up with Imoen as thief/mage to sneak behind and cast dispel magic etc before archers start.

Though granated, Rangers pulled the shortest straw in convertion from P&P to CRPG, many of their abilities just doesnt work, or is insignificant in a CRPG setting.

 

Rangers are actually way over powered in 2E rules. I believe they balanced that out with 3E rules. I do have to say though it was not easy rolling up a Ranger and that is why they were over powered.

 

I did specify in a CRPG (aka baldurs gate or icewind dale), and did under no circumstance mention their power or lack thereoff in P&P

(oh the munchkinness of level 1 ranger killing ogre hand in hand with 2 daggers and players option combat and tactics parry rule.)

But as some mentioned earlier, ranger basically is "just" a fighter with worse proficiencies, and stealth. so much of their original flavor is lost. Granted they do get spellcasting, but its nothign compared to what a druid get for example. Or even a bard.

 

Banana:

I understand that, and never said anything to the contrary.
grillen:

Maybe you figured that, but I'd like to know who these "most people" are.

BTW, the Ranger class has always caused some problems with gamers, because everyone has a different opinion on what they're "supposed" to be like. AD&D hasn't helped, since the Ranger class changes a lot in each edition.

 

If you want to go with the super-cheese, take off the armor, hide, and then put the heavy back on!

 

i'm one of those uninformed people that assumes that rangers match the aragorn stereotype, i.e. good with directions/tracking/etc, light chain or studded leather armor and fights with bows then swords.

however, i always build my rangers as tanks i like having my main character able to handle his own ass kicking. the R/C with a hammer is a huge asskicker.

 

I believe in BG1, rangers are mostly useful as tanks. In BG1, the only main differences between fighters and rangers are:

1. Maximum of two proficiency points per weapon
2. Stealth ability while wearing armors no greater than studded leather
3. Choice of a racial enemy (which IMO is a benefit to the "tank" part)

Of course, the advent of BGTuTu changed all of that. With the incorporation of kits, specifically the archer and especially the stalker, stealth took on a more useful role.

For me, it's more of an issue of laziness than anything. Why would I carry around two pieces of armor and switch them around constantly, when I have a thief who is always wearing the shadow armor and boots of stealth, and thus, has a very good chance at being successful at stealth anyway? It doesn't make any sense to me. Now once you start combining stealth ability with the ability to backstab as a stalker, or do a called shot with an archer, it's a whole different story.

 

I've got great mileage from Kivan wearing Drizzt's armour and sniping from the shadows. Of course, it's somewhat ironic that you only get to make best use of a ranger's abilities by killing Drizzt, the uber-ranger, but that's BioWare's fault for not thinking of this in advance and giving you some kind of "Ranger Mail" that lets you hide and have half-decent AC, thus making the Ranger in some way distinct from the fighter. Perhaps I'll make the suggestion to olimikrig for inclusion in his item mod...

 

First off in BG1 all you need is a AC of 5 or better and you are not that bad off. Compared to BG2 if you don't have a -5 AC or better you are dead. That is why I don't have a problem using my Ranger with studded leather since he is not my tank. After picking up the studded leather +2 my Human Ranger AC is 1 which isn't that bad. Later on I am going to give him the cloak and helm of Baldurian which would make his AC 0 or -1. Either way that is a good AC. I just wish he could use the Shadow Armor to receive the stealth bonus and the +1 AC bonus it also provides.