Ranger vs Fighter/cleric?

taltamir

What is the point of rangers? they are 1/3rd cleric 1/3rd fighter.
A fighter/cleric seems to be superior in every way.

CutlassJack

Easier leveling for one thing. But the more important thing is weapons. A fighter/Cleric will be limited to the weapons a cleric can use. So no bows, swords etc.

taltamir

CutlassJack said:

Easier leveling for one thing. But the more important thing is weapons. A fighter/Cleric will be limited to the weapons a cleric can use. So no bows, swords etc.

oooh, I hadn't considered the cleric weapon limitation...
I just checked and figher/druids have the same limitation.
And fighter/wizards have armor issues. It is quite a specific niche rangers have

forktheworld

Jaheira is a fighter/druid. I believe they are limited to druidic weapons, but that class approximates a Ranger even more closely than a fighter/cleric since rangers can only use druidic-style spells.

taltamir

forktheworld said:

Jaheira is a fighter/druid. I believe they are limited to druidic weapons, but that class approximates a Ranger even more closely than a fighter/cleric since rangers can only use druidic-style spells.

I just checked, she can't seem to wield any longswords/broadswords. She is vastly superior to minsk in every other way though. The only problem is that there are only so many uber weapons in the game, and some of them are swords. My minsk is currently carrying a selection of 8 epicly awesome swords which he is the only member of my party who can use. And somehow that escaped my noticed entirely when I made this post

[Deleted User]

Fighter/Druid runs into the wonkiness that is the Druid leveling chart, which can be annoying in mid to late SoA. Also, they have their own set of restricted weapons to worry about.

Rangers can stealth, which is something neither Fighter/Clerics or Fighter/Druids can do, although it may not have much of an impact on your play unless you're using the Stalker kit and can backstab. If the Racial Enemy bonus could be leveraged more often they might have a bit more going for them.

On the other hand, high level Cleric/Druid spells have some nice goodies to offer a front-line fighter that arguably make it worth dealing with the weapon restrictions, especially since the F/C can still use the Flail of Ages or Crom Faeyr, and the F/D can use Belm and the Club of Detonation.

Really, the pure class Ranger doesn't have a whole lot to recommend it (though that's true of most pure classes); it's the kits, particularly Archer and Stalker, that make it interesting from a mechanical standpoint.

taltamir

Kaigen said:

On the other hand, high level Cleric/Druid spells have some nice goodies to offer a front-line fighter that arguably make it worth dealing with the weapon restrictions, especially since the F/C can still use the Flail of Ages or Crom Faeyr, and the F/D can use Belm and the Club of Detonation.

My current party:
Fighter/Mage/Cleric - charname
Minsk - Ranger
Imoen - Fighter/Mage/Thief
Jeheira - Fighter/Druid
Aerie - Fighter/Mage/Cleric
Viconia - Fighter/Cleric

(thank you shadowkeeper!)
I am using all the weapons you mentioned, but there are only so many such weapons. And quite a lot of interesting swords, which only minsk and imoen can use, and she is using the staff of the magi (I might switch her to carsomyr +6 when she gets use any item)

Also, I currently have str boosting items on everyone except charname (who doesn't need it) and Aerie.
I am honestly not sure if I should keep minsk's offhand as belm for the +1 APR or give him that sword that sets strength to 22.

I was considering editing minsk away from ranger to a fighter/druid but then forktheworld pointed out the sword thing

elminster

Edit...woops. Sorry. Missed that you'd changed things around a bit

mylegbig

It'd be better to compare rangers to paladins. They're both warrior classes that are restricted to good, can only specialize in weapons, and share the same experience table, while having a bit of divine spell casting and a few other abilities. Unfortunately for rangers though, paladins still come out ahead. Better spells, better special abilities, better class only equipment....

lamaros

Archers are very very strong - one of the most powerful classes right up to ToB.

Corvino

Rangers are pretty roleplay friendly, and they get access to a unique stronghold in BG2. They do also get access to a broad range of abilities including low-level druid-circle spellcasting, stealth, and get free specialisation in dual-wield. They also have high class minimums, making it easy to roll good stats.

A friend of mine new to Baldur's Gate wanted to play a class that would give him a good idea of how to play. He wanted to be able to do a bit of everything. I suggested unkitted Ranger, as they're combat orientated Jack-of-all-Trades. I think he enjoyed it.

SionIV

Ranger/Cleric is the most powerful divine combination, much more so than Fighter/Cleric.

A Ranger/Cleric get both the cleric spells AND the druid spells.

IkMarc

In my opinion a fighter/cleric multiclass perhaps being overall superior to a ranger is not really an argument against the ranger class. There are many multi/dual combinations that in terms of metagaming power make other classes obsolete. By this reasoning the ranger/cleric would make the druid redundant, the fighter/mage would make the bard redundant etc..

I think that overall the implemented classes in BG make sense roleplaying wise and are adequate in terms of game balance and fulfilling different tactical functions.

ZanathKariashi

And keep in mind, the R/C is only good because of a bug. A bug that'll likely never be fixed...but a bug none the less.

SionIV

And a bug that some of us love very dearly, aaah Ironskin... how you touch me.

ZanathKariashi

Ironskins is a horrible spell, one of the worst in the game (AoF or animal summoning spells give more damage reduction overall). It's amazing how only a difference in cast time can be the difference between a great spell (stoneskin, cast speed 1) and a horrible one (Ironskins, cast speed 9).

SionIV

With the exception that in the original game Iron skin can't be dispelled or removed while stoneskin can, so it's actually superior.

karnor00

ZanathKariashi said:

Ironskins is a horrible spell, one of the worst in the game (AoF or animal summoning spells give more damage reduction overall). It's amazing how only a difference in cast time can be the difference between a great spell (stoneskin, cast speed 1) and a horrible one (Ironskins, cast speed 9).

A rather crucial difference is that ironskins can be cast while wearing armor (as it's a divine spell) whereas stoneskin cannot (as it's an arcane spell). And ironskins + high AC means it typically lasts a lot longer than stoneskin (which is usually only available for lower AC characters).

TethorilofLathander

In IWD I used a ranger as my leader, he was really good but (as many do) he was trained mostly with a bow and spear. Through the whole Bhaalspawn saga I had a Fighter/Cleric and they are brilliant! Giant hammers mixed with full plate and packing....spells

ZanathKariashi

@karnor00

Except Arcane casters ALSO have higher AC's then divine-only casters can possibly achieve. Most of the AC buffing spells or damage avoidance spells are arcane. So you've brought up the other reason ironskin sucks. It runs out quicker then stoneskin would, since an arcane caster will have more AC then a R/C possibly can.

The only good spells Druids current bring to a character are the insect swarms and elementals. Ironskins is never worth casting, vs other options for that level.

karnor00

ZanathKariashi said:

@karnor00

Except Arcane casters ALSO have higher AC's then divine-only casters can possibly achieve. Most of the AC buffing spells or damage avoidance spells are arcane. So you've brought up the other reason ironskin sucks. It runs out quicker then stoneskin would, since an arcane caster will have more AC then a R/C possibly can.

The only good spells Druids current bring to a character are the insect swarms and elementals. Ironskins is never worth casting, vs other options for that level.

I guess we must play the game very differently then. My mages tend to stand in the back with poor AC and hoping they don't get hit. My R/C stands in the front line with magical full plate armor + shield + as many ironskins as I can memorise and tanks like a champion.

So with the way I play, ironskins is an amazing spell.

ZanathKariashi

Oh...so you just like adding a Fighter to mage for the hell out it, without actually using their combat skills.....cause otherwise it sounds like you're comparing a single class mage to a R/C dual/multi (and for the record the single class mage is actually still better at straight combat then a R/C is (using mage only buffs to boot, no less)......Arcane magic is OP after all, you know).

SionIV

Iron skin does not suck, and saying that is just silly. It's a very powerful spell and comes close to stoneskin and can't be removed by dispel magic or such.

It's a wonderful spell and it's well worth it's slot.

ZanathKariashi

Where in the hell did you come up with Ironskins being immune to dispel magic? It's mechanically identical to stoneskin aside from the abysmally long cast time.

SionIV

You can't dispel Iron skin in the original game. I think it's BG2 tweaks or SCS that changes this.

[Edited] :

From SCS readme.

Iron Skins behaves like Stoneskin (can be brought down by Breach)

For some reason the Iron Skins spell, although it appears identical to a Stoneskin, counts as a Spell Protection (like Spell Turning) and not as a Combat Protection (like Stoneskin). This means that in the unmodded game, Breach does not bring down Iron Skins, but (e.g.) Secret Word does. This component relabels Iron Skins as a Combat Protection.

Enemy mages will assume that Iron Skins works this way (and so will, e.g., cast Breach at it) even if you don't install this component.

karnor00

ZanathKariashi said:

Oh...so you just like adding a Fighter to mage for the hell out it, without actually using their combat skills.....cause otherwise it sounds like you're comparing a single class mage to a R/C dual/multi (and for the record the single class mage is actually still better at straight combat then a R/C is (using mage only buffs to boot, no less)......Arcane magic is OP after all, you know).

To be honest, I wasn't really trying to compare R/C to F/M but to my mages. My mages tend to be single classed (sometimes dual F>M but dual at fairly low level just for extra hitpoints for a very minor xp cost). So with the way I play, stoneskin is more of an afterthought type spell used to protect my mages if they can't avoid combat. My mages tend to be focused on spell damage and debuff duty.

Ironskin on the other hand is on my main frontline tank and improves his survivability by a huge amount.

Clearly you play the game very differently with combat mages (or F/M) using stoneskin in the front line. So understandable that you prefer stoneskin to ironskins. That's fine - it's not like there's a right or wrong way to play the game.

ZanathKariashi

And it's obviously a bug if that's the case since the description clearly states that it can be removed via dispel magic or once the skins are used up.

elminster

The only mechanical difference between Ironskins and Stoneskin, apart from the casting times, is that breach will work against stoneskin but not against ironskin. Considering how rare it is to have breach cast on you its not much of a benefit.

SionIV

Just like it's a bug with the C/R and everything else you mention ZanathKariashi. It's part of the game just as much as C/R and everything else, BG2 is not perfect but it's still the game we play so we'll just have to go with it.

"

ZanathKariashi said:

Where in the hell did you come up with Ironskins being immune to dispel magic? It's mechanically identical to stoneskin aside from the abysmally long cast time.

So the only difference with Stoneskin and Ironskin is the casting time, which shouldn't be a problem if you play efficiently. Please stop saying shit like Ironskin sucks when it's a very good spell.

[Edited]:

Not going to get into that discussion.

elminster

Having veered off course here myself (by pointing out about ironskins and breach) I am going to now point out that the title of this thread concerns rangers or fighter clerics, not who can win in a fight (mages vs cleric/rangers).

SionIV

elminster said:

Having veered off course here myself (by pointing out about ironskins and breach) I am going to now point out that the title of this thread concerns rangers or fighter clerics, not who can win in a fight (mages vs cleric/rangers).

You're correct!

F/C -> Ranger
R/C -> F/C
Nymph from level 4 spells -> Everything.

It's a dryad you summon, no?