What? When did I ever say the Archer destroys everything?
I made it perfectly clear that the Archer I'm talking about is working in a party. The Archer mows down stuff that doesn't have Missile Resistance while party members deal with everything else. Some enemy groups with high Missile resistance can be still be destroyed in an instant with stuff like Turn Undead or Crom Faeyr (which the Archer can also use) from party members.
And in the event that all that doesn't work, the Archer can just switch to melee only "suffering" -2 damage, -1 THAC0, and -0.5 APR
Turn undead assumes you are far above the level of the undead you are turning, Crom Faeyr if used in a party is better used on someone other than your archer, and the loss of damage from going melee with an archer is much more than what you think depending on level, group, and weapons and then outside WW an archer is capped at 8 attacks with a bow using imp haste and 4 without if using a speed bow otherwise cut that number even further which also means if you are using a speed bow you are using a smaller enhancement since they last I knew did not receive an enhancement bonus like the unlimited ammo weapons.
Meleeing is a last resort for the Archer, when it literally can't hit anything. And when stuff can't be instantly killed by the entire party. It's not something the Archer does on a permanent basis. So the penalty isn't as serious as it sounds, since it isn't even that serious to begin with.
And it really doesn't matter if there's a better wielder of the Crom Faeyr because the end result is the same. Golems stop mattering for Archers, because they'll drop dead anyway.
Most undead groups I've encountered that don't immediately explode are rarely immune to Missiles specifically. Skeleton Warriors are probably the only serious threat that don't get instantly turned for when you normally would encounter them. But, like I said, have the Archer switch to a melee weapon.
Interesting discussion between archer and stalker.
Stalker, while not great at all (being inferior to all fighter types) is the best for solo play.
For group play however i prefer the archer since it does bring something unique while the stalker is just a very inferior FT. Their damage potential is also very high provided they use firetooth+special arrows
Stalker - the description says, they are "spies and interrogators" ... which means, as close to Evil as possible while staying Good. Because there is no Evil Ranger kit, the Stalker will do. And it's like a gimped Warrior-Thief with some more stuff on the side (minor casting).
Great discussion. The amount of detailed analysis that you guys and the BG community overall have generated is remarkable.
I simply cannot imagine a Ranger who is Melee deficient. Their very nature in my Tolkein-founded canon is the ability to meet almost any situation they might encounter. The Archer on the other hand is more effective as a Party member when Tanks and Casters are controlling the battlefield.
Stalker is a good kit, but whenever I want a Stalker then I can recruit Valygar.
As a choice for a protagonist (which is what I think we're meant to be discussing), I'd rather have something different from what the NPCs can provide, because it's more interesting than just duplicating an NPC.
Therefore, I'll go with Archer. However, I've never actually tried a Beast Master, so one day I'm planning to give that a go, to see for myself how it works out.
Incidentally, popular opinion seems to say that Beast Masters are feeble, but my experience has been that popular opinion is often ill-informed opinion. I don't know about Beast Masters because I haven't tried one, but I do know that popular opinion about Shapeshifters (e.g. Cernd) is also very negative, whereas when I actually tried taking Cernd and sticking with him right through to the end, it turned out that he actually becomes pretty useful at higher (15+) levels. So maybe Beast Masters are also better than some people think ... I'll find out when I try one for myself.
I like vanilla ranger the best, because they're the most versatile. Thanks to the addition of BG2 rules into BG1 (which means dual wielding), vanilla ranger is probably my favorite class to play BG:EE. You can be both a long range sharpshooter and a dual wielding tank almost right off the bat. The other ranger kits have armor and/or weapon restrictions that basically force them to hide in the shadows or at long range.
I know vanilla rangers don't gain the same sort of bonuses that the kits get over the course of BG2, but they're still interesting IMO because they have a lot more dual wielding options to choose from.
@SharGuidesMyHand - I remember in original BG2 using Valygar (i.e. a Stalker) as a dual-wielding front-line tank a time or two (using dragon-scale armour, which he's allowed to wear, instead of his default leather). Worked fine, all the way to end of ToB. (Haven't tried this in BG2ee yet.)
@SharGuidesMyHand - I remember in original BG2 using Valygar (i.e. a Stalker) as a dual-wielding front-line tank a time or two (using dragon-scale armour, which he's allowed to wear, instead of his default leather). Worked fine, all the way to end of ToB. (Haven't tried this in BG2ee yet.)
There are so many magic armor options in BG2, that you can probably find magic leather armor that gives as much protection as normal full plate (well, maybe not, but you get the idea...). My point is, armor restrictions are generally felt a lot less (sometimes not at all) in BG2.
However, BG1 has far less magic armor options to choose from, so that any armor restrictions are felt very strongly. Even barbarians noticeably suffer from their inability to wear more than splint mail in BG1.
1. Ridiculous THACO 2. Large amount of weapon proficiences early on 3. Stealth and Backstab. 4x is plenty to kill anything that can be backstabbed. 4. Single Class 5. A few killer spells including haste 6. Add in Power Strike and Critical Strike for good measure.
If you want to play a light armored, dual wielding, stealth fighter then the stalker is the way to go.
Is it true that Stalker kit includes ~ No penalty to Stealth ability in Urban setting?? That would be important to know for RP reasons.
I also saw in another post that Stalker can Detect Traps without leaving Stealth mode - something that Thief class really should be allowed but isn't?? Still learning!!
Archer, because I have made two Black Pits 2 parties with archers and they have decimated everyone (well, except for two: the demon battle and the drow battle, in which my main strategy is to make sure everyone is protected from evil then cast Gate).
For me, I very much loved the Archer. Although it was a toss up for me between the Archer and the Stalker.
The archer was just amazing fun. The called shot ability is beautiful and there are a couple of really good bows that go unloved without a decent archer!
However, for roleplay purposes I MUCH prefer the Stalker. He has a wonderful set of abilities and actually FEELS like a ranger. Someone who has spent years on the frontiers, learning how to survive, how to hide, how to lurk and how to kill quickly and quietly.
In BG1, Archer is probably the easiest/most straightforward nonsolo PC. A fighter based on Archery slaughters, bonus' just makes them ridiculous.
However, come BG2, now Stalker leads... SWORDS FOR EVERYONE! Stalkers can use lots of good armour in BG2, have substantial backstab to open things up and have some useful buffs. Fighter THAC0 and backstab means not missing. Really, no downsides in BG2, but the limited armour choice in BG1 makes stalkers hard to run.
I've read often how stalkers are out shined by F/Ts, however, I have yet to see this actually be the case in my experience, so I'm assuming this, like many power gaming arguments, are based on end game characters, and not over the course of the entire game. You know, all the playing it takes to get to the end game uber character I prefer having more weapon profs, faster leveling, and lower THACO, thus connecting my backstabs more often, and being able to cast Find Traps and scout hidden while finding traps, then let my backup thief take them out.
Nah, Fighter/Thieves are tough throughout the game as well. It's probably the most consistently powerful multi-class. Nothing wrong with Stalkers though.
I picked Archer not because I think it's better than Stalker, but that Stalker is not a good option choose. If the game only has the Ranger class and nothing else, then I would pick Stalker over Archer. But in my opinion, Stalker is rendered obsolete and almost completely outclassed by a dual-classed Thief/Fighter. I would only choose Stalker if I wasn't playing human, and I play human most of the time.
Dualed fighter thief is better only right when you get your powers back... ie if you dual out at 9, by 18 rogue you're a worse figter often than a F/T multi. The later you dual, he more inconvinient, but he better the end result... until the multi starts taking HLAs, then any f/t dc is much weaker. Even a Kensai/thief is hard pressed to match a similar xp high level multi with his heap of HLAs. Fighter HLA outshine +4 to hit and damage even if you dualled later.
Stalker is as good in melee as the f/t DC generally, buffs comparing well to Grandmastery. The multi is a more difficult call, but imho, the stalker has more fighter, he multi has more thief!
The difference in Thac0 between a Stalker and a Fighter/thief is going to be be maybe 1-2 thac0 throughout the series. So really not all that significant.
Dualed fighter thief is better only right when you get your powers back... ie if you dual out at 9, by 18 rogue you're a worse figter often than a F/T multi. The later you dual, he more inconvinient, but he better the end result... until the multi starts taking HLAs, then any f/t dc is much weaker. Even a Kensai/thief is hard pressed to match a similar xp high level multi with his heap of HLAs. Fighter HLA outshine +4 to hit and damage even if you dualled later.
Stalker is as good in melee as the f/t DC generally, buffs comparing well to Grandmastery. The multi is a more difficult call, but imho, the stalker has more fighter, he multi has more thief!
I said dualclassed Thief/Fighter, so Thief->Fighter. If you dual at 9, you get the 4x backstab of the Stalker after only having to earn 610,000XP compared to 2,700,000XP you'd have to earn with the Stalker. This way you'd have Grandmastery from Fighter, and be able to reach level 39 as a Fighter, while Stalker is capped at level 34. The dualclassed Fighter levels will catch up to and surpass the Stalker level at level 12. The only disadvantages of the dual Thief->Fighter that I can see are the time waiting to actually have both class abilities, spells, and possibly HP. But there wouldn't be a huge difference in HP by endgame, since the Fighter gains 5 more levels than the Stalker.
Stalkers get spells remember? T to F cant use buffing from scrolls, so its not as good as F to T at higher levels for buffing, and your HP will be MUCH lower, and high level rangers can cast AoF, so the Stalker can tank vs tough enemies easily. I still prefer the stalker as the melee specialist.
The difference in Thac0 between a Stalker and a Fighter/thief is going to be be maybe 1-2 thac0 throughout the series. So really not all that significant.
I'm not sure where you got this from. I just picked a random level: 20 for a stalker, which puts them at 3,600,000 XP and a THACO of 1. Half of 3,600,000 is 1,800,000, which is fighter level 15, THACO 6, a 5 point difference. Maybe I need to compare a few more XP amounts to see what you're talking about.
You already figured out what I meant but because I spent a bunch of time on this I'm posting this anyways
Comments
I made it perfectly clear that the Archer I'm talking about is working in a party. The Archer mows down stuff that doesn't have Missile Resistance while party members deal with everything else. Some enemy groups with high Missile resistance can be still be destroyed in an instant with stuff like Turn Undead or Crom Faeyr (which the Archer can also use) from party members.
And in the event that all that doesn't work, the Archer can just switch to melee only "suffering" -2 damage, -1 THAC0, and -0.5 APR
And it really doesn't matter if there's a better wielder of the Crom Faeyr because the end result is the same. Golems stop mattering for Archers, because they'll drop dead anyway.
Most undead groups I've encountered that don't immediately explode are rarely immune to Missiles specifically. Skeleton Warriors are probably the only serious threat that don't get instantly turned for when you normally would encounter them. But, like I said, have the Archer switch to a melee weapon.
Stalker, while not great at all (being inferior to all fighter types) is the best for solo play.
For group play however i prefer the archer since it does bring something unique while the stalker is just a very inferior FT. Their damage potential is also very high provided they use firetooth+special arrows
I don't know anything about beastmasters.
Because there is no Evil Ranger kit, the Stalker will do. And it's like a gimped Warrior-Thief with some more stuff on the side (minor casting).
I simply cannot imagine a Ranger who is Melee deficient. Their very nature in my Tolkein-founded canon is the ability to meet almost any situation they might encounter. The Archer on the other hand is more effective as a Party member when Tanks and Casters are controlling the battlefield.
As a choice for a protagonist (which is what I think we're meant to be discussing), I'd rather have something different from what the NPCs can provide, because it's more interesting than just duplicating an NPC.
Therefore, I'll go with Archer. However, I've never actually tried a Beast Master, so one day I'm planning to give that a go, to see for myself how it works out.
Incidentally, popular opinion seems to say that Beast Masters are feeble, but my experience has been that popular opinion is often ill-informed opinion. I don't know about Beast Masters because I haven't tried one, but I do know that popular opinion about Shapeshifters (e.g. Cernd) is also very negative, whereas when I actually tried taking Cernd and sticking with him right through to the end, it turned out that he actually becomes pretty useful at higher (15+) levels. So maybe Beast Masters are also better than some people think ... I'll find out when I try one for myself.
I know vanilla rangers don't gain the same sort of bonuses that the kits get over the course of BG2, but they're still interesting IMO because they have a lot more dual wielding options to choose from.
However, BG1 has far less magic armor options to choose from, so that any armor restrictions are felt very strongly. Even barbarians noticeably suffer from their inability to wear more than splint mail in BG1.
Pros
1. Ridiculous THACO
2. Large amount of weapon proficiences early on
3. Stealth and Backstab. 4x is plenty to kill anything that can be backstabbed.
4. Single Class
5. A few killer spells including haste
6. Add in Power Strike and Critical Strike for good measure.
If you want to play a light armored, dual wielding, stealth fighter then the stalker is the way to go.
I also saw in another post that Stalker can Detect Traps without leaving Stealth mode - something that Thief class really should be allowed but isn't?? Still learning!!
The archer was just amazing fun. The called shot ability is beautiful and there are a couple of really good bows that go unloved without a decent archer!
However, for roleplay purposes I MUCH prefer the Stalker. He has a wonderful set of abilities and actually FEELS like a ranger. Someone who has spent years on the frontiers, learning how to survive, how to hide, how to lurk and how to kill quickly and quietly.
So I would vote twice if I could.
However, come BG2, now Stalker leads... SWORDS FOR EVERYONE! Stalkers can use lots of good armour in BG2, have substantial backstab to open things up and have some useful buffs. Fighter THAC0 and backstab means not missing. Really, no downsides in BG2, but the limited armour choice in BG1 makes stalkers hard to run.
I picked Archer not because I think it's better than Stalker, but that Stalker is not a good option choose. If the game only has the Ranger class and nothing else, then I would pick Stalker over Archer. But in my opinion, Stalker is rendered obsolete and almost completely outclassed by a dual-classed Thief/Fighter. I would only choose Stalker if I wasn't playing human, and I play human most of the time.
Stalker is as good in melee as the f/t DC generally, buffs comparing well to Grandmastery. The multi is a more difficult call, but imho, the stalker has more fighter, he multi has more thief!
5.000 xp: F/T = level 2 (for the fighter half obviously), ranger = level 3
10.000 xp: F/T = level 3, ranger = level 4
20.000 xp: F/T = level 4, ranger = level 5
40.000 xp: F/T = level 5, ranger = level 6
60.000 xp: F/T = level 5, ranger = level 6
80,000 xp: F/T = level 6, ranger = level 7
100,000 xp: F/T = level 6, ranger = level 7.
150,000 xp: F/T = level 7, ranger = level 8.
200,000 xp: F/T = level 7, ranger = level 8.
250,000 xp: F/T = level 8, ranger = level 8.
300,000 xp: F/T = level 8, ranger = level 9.
500,000 xp: F/T = level 9, ranger = level 9.
750,000 xp: F/T = level 9, ranger = level 10.
1, 000, 000 xp: F/T = level 10, ranger = level 11.
1,500,000 xp: F/T = level 11, ranger = level 13.
2, 000, 000 xp: F/T = level 12, ranger = level 14.
2.5 million xp : F/T = level 13, ranger = level 16.
3 million xp: F/T = level 14, ranger = level 18. (at this point both start getting access to HLA's, including eventually getting access to Critical Strike, so Thac0 becomes not as big of a deal).