Anyone still like vanilla Ranger?
SharGuidesMyHand
Member Posts: 2,580
I was thinking of playing as a vanilla ranger for my next full playthrough (beginning with BG1:EE) - admittedly, largely because I wanted an excuse to use this excellent portrait that Syntia13 created:
But aside from RP purposes, it seems to me that a vanilla ranger is still a very efficient class. After all, look at Kivan, who is generally considered one of, if not the best offensive machines in BG1 - and he doesn't even fully capitalize on the ranger's full potential, since he mainly specializes in halberds, which forgoes the ranger's dual-wield potential. Personally I love the fact that a ranger can be a fairly effective dual-wielder right off the bat, and those two prof points can be better spent elsewhere.
In other discussions, I've seen it said that the vanilla ranger class has been eclipsed by its kit classes. I don't agree. The ranger kits all have armor and/or weapon restrictions that prevent them from being effective tanks. What strikes me most about the vanilla ranger is that they can be both a skilled ranged fighter or a heavily armored, dual wielding tank with equal effectiveness.
What are other people's thoughts about vanilla rangers? Are there any other drawbacks that I'm overlooking here?
But aside from RP purposes, it seems to me that a vanilla ranger is still a very efficient class. After all, look at Kivan, who is generally considered one of, if not the best offensive machines in BG1 - and he doesn't even fully capitalize on the ranger's full potential, since he mainly specializes in halberds, which forgoes the ranger's dual-wield potential. Personally I love the fact that a ranger can be a fairly effective dual-wielder right off the bat, and those two prof points can be better spent elsewhere.
In other discussions, I've seen it said that the vanilla ranger class has been eclipsed by its kit classes. I don't agree. The ranger kits all have armor and/or weapon restrictions that prevent them from being effective tanks. What strikes me most about the vanilla ranger is that they can be both a skilled ranged fighter or a heavily armored, dual wielding tank with equal effectiveness.
What are other people's thoughts about vanilla rangers? Are there any other drawbacks that I'm overlooking here?
3
Comments
Perhaps the ease of fighter dual-classing is to blame, too. In BG2 there is little to no reason not to do it, and end up considerably more powerful than a "hybrid" class like Ranger or Paladin. Rangers simply do not gain enough to offset dual-classing, particularly when higher levels are involved and XP values make dualing quite easy and quick (lvl 9 duals in BG2 can regain levels extremely fast).
That being said, the Ranger kits do mitigate this somewhat. Archers in particular are very, very good. They illustrate nicely just how much unique benefits you need to pack onto a pure class to make it better than (or at least comparable to) dual-class alternatives.
The lvl1-2-3 druid spells are pretty weak, not good enough to let them shine.
What do you think of archers at the higher levels?
It's only in late SoA and ToB that you begin to feel a drop in their relative power; partly because ranged weapons are limited in damage by ammo and the diminishing returns on Archer damage bonuses, partly because your melee characters end up with truly amazing weapons that blow the ranged alternatives out of the water. Many of the best ranged weapons (Tuigan Bow, Firetooth, Army Scythe) are available incredibly early, basically right as you step out into the city from Chateau Irenicus. That gives Archers a huge advantage, and makes them into true killing machines early on. However, there is a noticeable lack of good endgame ranged weapons, with only Shortbow of Gesen to be picked up until the very end of the entire series. Compared to the tools you can assemble for your melees, that's just not very good.
But again, Archers completely dominate the early game (and all of BG1), are very good in the mid-game, and still retain some of their usefulness in the late game. A compromise, I find, that is more than acceptable. After all, someone has to carry those dual-classers while they're in wimp-mode, eh? ¬_¬
The base ranger is capable, but as many pointed out its not as strong as the other weapon based classes. Best use of the ranger for me is to dual class it to a Cleric from either level 7 or 9 ranger (only a 4 HP difference from waiting till level 9), though I'd rather dual from a level 9 slinger archer to make a super powered backline slinger divine, even though they can only put 2 points into slings, they still get lots of bonuses.
Archer gains +1 to hit and damage rolls with ANY missile weapon every 3 levels, called shot every 4 levels and grandmastery in bows or crossbows.
Going with slings instead just limits you to 2 points in slings, but you still gain +3 to hit and damage, 2 uses of Called Shot and 1.5 base attacks per round if you dual an Archer at level 9 to a Cleric.
You cant wear more than leather armour, but thats not really much of an issue for a backline Cleric.
Oh yea, and the main reason to do this - You gain ALL druid spells added to your Cleric spellbook too.
In my opinion, unless you want to specialize in sneaking (and thus a Stalker would come into mind) or Archery (Archer kit), the ranger is inferior to a normal Fighter.
The minor druid spells do not make any real difference and if you strap your Ranger into heavy armor, he can't sneak.
Which effectively makes him a Fighter, but without GrandMastery in weapons.
I'm not sold on that combo though, slings are still slings and are sorely lacking in APR. Especially if you dual (ie can't GWW). On the plus side Called Shot Energy Blades should be fun.
Still, I think the best use of the ranger>cleric dual is to charge in with iron skins and guns blazing.
If you want to melee then go plain Ranger > Cleric.
Oh right, and the missile bonuses also apply to energy blades too.
Stalker or Archer are the only rangers worth playing, otherwise a plain fighter is much better. Not that Stalkers and Archers are that strong either, but at least they get some decent bonuses to either backstabbing or ranged.
Rolling a vanilla bard would be solely for RP purposes. A Skald is far superior, only it doesn't fit the ward of Gorion. Their song is not only a maaaaasive combat boost for the entire party, but also eventually matches and surpasses the original bard 's song effect gaining additional immunity to stun etc.
I'm actually quite bitter about this
Sorry, I know this thread is about rangers
Also, disappointed by the lack of minsc in this this. He's a straight class ranger who spends the entire game kicking ass and taking names. Dude never slacks, not even for a moment.