Skip to content

does anybody else play rangers

I know they're outperformed by most other classes (dual and multi especially) but I still play a ranger nearly all the time... Does anybody else play ranger (kits inc) regularly for the love of the class?
GozetaAerakarlolienmashedtatersJuliusBorisovNoobaccasparkleav[Deleted User]OrlonKronsteen
«134

Comments

  • JumboWheat01JumboWheat01 Member Posts: 1,028
    Personally, no, but mostly because of thematics. I'm more of a Druid or Cleric kind of guy, with a sprinkling of Thief from time to time. (One of these days I should totally do a Cleric/Thief character.)

    My cousin, on the other hand, LOVES Rangers. I can't say which he likes more, Stalker or Archer, but he loves both so much.
    Gozetajesterdesu
  • BelleSorciereBelleSorciere Member Posts: 2,108
    My first character through Baldur's Gate 2 back when the game was new was a ranger, and a lot of fun.

    I haven't made a ranger since, though.
    GozetaMacHurtojesterdesu
  • GozetaGozeta Member Posts: 105
    I played as a ranger to essentially re-create Drizzt.
    jesterdesu
  • semiticgoddesssemiticgoddess Member Posts: 14,903
    Kinda.

    I play Archers, but mostly Generic Archers, the special kit from the Tactics mod that's actually a fighter kit with Archer abilities, just because it can dual-class to mage or thief.
  • MacHurtoMacHurto Member Posts: 731
    edited May 2016
    My first character in all games (BG, NWN, IWD, etc) was usually a vanilla ranger. I just like the concept. Dont play them more than once, though
    mashedtaters
  • OtherguyOtherguy Member Posts: 157
    I Think pretty much everyone includes an Archer or two in a Power gaming setup. They are simply Amazing from start to finish with their fantastic steady damage output and an I win button with called shot. The stealth is just an added bonus imho.

    The other rangers have a nice RP element but I would never include them among the best of the best.

    Isn't that a pretty good balance overall? One very powerful kit and the rest pretty interesting even if the beastmaster is kind of weak.

    The Stalker debate is getting a tad old imho. I personally don't really like them and would much rather have a F/T or my personal favorite the FMT.
  • Lord_TansheronLord_Tansheron Member Posts: 4,211
    I find that most Rangers lack sufficient uniqueness to distinguish them from Fighters; especially in how they play. They are worse Fighters with a few minor buffs, which is a very weak premise to get me interested.

    That being said, the Archer kit has that uniqueness. They have a clear focus and clear role, with extra abilities and extra bonuses to really get the point across. That essentially makes them THE Ranger for me, with all the other kits being pale shadows. And as was already mentioned, I too am an avid fan of what Archers bring to a party powergaming-wise, and I nearly always include one (or even two).

    As an aside: long ago I toyed around with an idea of how to make classes more interesting overall with the given tools. One idea I came up with was to make dual-wielding a thing limited to very specific setups: Swashbuckler for Rogues, for example, or Berserker for Fighter. Ranger however would always have access to the feature, giving them a more unique characteristic; in my idea they were also the only ones able to go to *** in two-weapon fighting while everyone else was stuck at **. While those thoughts never resulted in anything tangible, it serves to illustrate the lack of distinguishing characteristics between Rangers and Fighters.
  • Sids1188Sids1188 Member Posts: 165
    Archers are really powerful - by far the best choice for their niche. But I find them kinda dull and one dimensional. See enemy, shoot, rinse, repeat.

    I love the concept of stalkers as sneaky, backstabbing scouts. Problem is everything they can do, a fighter/thief does better - same proficiencies, more stealth, basically the same thac0. Only differences are that f/t gets more backstab, has an option of heavy armour for tough fights, and after maxing stealth it can diversify into other skills. In exchange for all that, stalkers get charm animal, some minor druid spells and a few mage ones. Haste is good, but can probably be cast by someone else. Armour of faith is pretty much all you have left.

    Stalker/clerics are pretty cool though, besides giving all divine spells they also fill a unique role - there are no fighter/thief/clerics.

    Pure rangers are alright, but I don't really see the point. They can stealth, but without backstab it's a bit lacking, and if you're going to wear light armour you might as well be a stalker. They have some spells, but nothing great. Other than that, they're fighters that can't get grand mastery, and have more limited races/classes. Ranger/cleric is good of course, but using the high level druid spells feels cheap, and without them you might as well be a fighter/cleric and get shorty saves.

    As for beastmaster... Well you're a stalker with less stealth, less weapon choices, no backstab, and instead of some sort of useful mage spells when you need them, you instead get stuck with 3 specific druid spells that even druids don't use.
    semiticgoddessJuliusBorisov
  • GoturalGotural Member Posts: 1,229
    I still dislike Archers and think they don't deserve a spot in a powergaming party. Sure they deal a lot of damage but that's pretty much it and I don't value damage very much actually.

    I think damage output is a parameter that doesn't win you fights, but speeds up the battles.
    JuliusBorisovSkarose
  • Abi_DalzimAbi_Dalzim Member Posts: 1,428
    I think the Archer's value is not only their DPS, but also that they can inflict so much damage while also denying enemies a chance to retaliate, whether with Hide in Shadows or with enhanced speed.
    BelleSorciere
  • dok0zhivagodok0zhivago Member Posts: 82
    Can't imagine an IWD party without a ranger. Usually ranger/cleric or stalker, sometimes beastmaster, rarely archer (although this kit rocks). I consider stalker to be a true representation of ranger so I refuse to play vanilla.
    My last BGee playthrough was with a cleric/ranger
  • BelleSorciereBelleSorciere Member Posts: 2,108
    That decision about ranger alignment was made decades ago.

    I assume the ranger class was at least in part inspired by Aragorn.
    jackjackMacHurtoButtercheese
  • JumboWheat01JumboWheat01 Member Posts: 1,028
    Which they thankfully did away with in 3rd Edition. Or else we'd never have Belkar (OotS,) or Bishop (NWN2.)
    jackjackButtercheeseKamigoroshi
  • BelleSorciereBelleSorciere Member Posts: 2,108
    True that.
  • Lord_TansheronLord_Tansheron Member Posts: 4,211
    Gotural said:

    I still dislike Archers and think they don't deserve a spot in a powergaming party. Sure they deal a lot of damage but that's pretty much it and I don't value damage very much actually.

    I think damage output is a parameter that doesn't win you fights, but speeds up the battles.

    Thing is, the things that do "win you fights" are fairly easy to cover with very few slots. What's left is the wetwork. Archers excel at that in many respects, particularly during early and mid game (in BG2) where you are most vulnerable because you don't have all the tools yet. That is essentially their primary purpose, and they do taper off in efficacy later on. I'm fine with that.

    As for damage, I have always been a firm believer in "strike first, don't ask questions later". LoB has put a damper on that to some degree, but it also reinforces the value of damage due to the high HP pools.

    In the end, if you want to compare performance there has to be SOME sort of efficiency metric. Just going by "did I lose the fight" is insufficient because you can slog it out over an excruciating amount of time with many setups; clearly a worse performance despite not actually losing the fight. Archers deliver a lot in that respect, plain and simple and no strings attached.
  • jesterdesujesterdesu Member Posts: 373
    edited May 2016
    I actually play vanilla ranger mainly. I like charm animal, especially in bg1 where you see most animals, as I don't like to kill them (it's a RP thing). And I really like wearing elven chain as soon as I find it.

    Stealth without backstab is still helpful for scouting and getting into position/ picking off enemies from range.

    By now I know where most/ all the traps in the game are (if only they could randomize that). Even before I'd generally move my ranger and thief together. This also highlights my main issue with bg rangers tho... Lack of detect and set traps. (could that ever be easily modded?)

    And I know their spell casting comes late and is never much to write home about (why it's weaker than a paladins tho I do not understand). However I still like having some slow poison, cure disease, armour of faith, resist fire/ cold to hand, without having to resort to potions.

    In summary, if they'd implemented find & set traps and a tracking mechanic of sorts, the vanilla ranger would be perfect for me... As is he is not too far off.

    Edit: And level 4 spells.
  • KamigoroshiKamigoroshi Member Posts: 5,870
    I abhor OD&D's and AD&D's Ranger. Plain and simple. They are nothing more than fanatically hamlet sheriffs with ego issues. Self-righteous, self-centric and walking genocides at its best. Pfeh!

    Give me a hunter, poacher, forester, or an good ol' lumberjack any day of the week.
  • jesterdesujesterdesu Member Posts: 373

    I abhor OD&D's and AD&D's Ranger. Plain and simple. They are nothing more than fanatically hamlet sheriffs with ego issues. Self-righteous, self-centric and walking genocides at its best. Pfeh!

    Give me a hunter, poacher, forester, or an good ol' lumberjack any day of the week.

    3 of those professions make their living from murder/ Wanton destruction of nature :disappointed: Are you an Orc?
    mashedtatersGozetaPteransemiticgoddess
  • byrne20byrne20 Member Posts: 503
    When I first started playing Baldur's Gate way back when it was first released I started with a fighter on my first play through and eventually became interested in the concept of the Ranger. The rest is history lol. Ranger will always be my favourite class. From a role play perspective they are so much more interesting than the boring 'Fighter' class and even though they cant go past specialization in there weapons I really never found this to be an issue. My Ranger still always kicked butt.
    jesterdesuAerakar
  • catsarekacampcatsarekacamp Member Posts: 52
    Lot's of people love and play Rangers. I hate these obvious DAE questions.

    My personal fave is a Crossbow Archer, Half-Elven. Insane damage in BG2 with Firetooth.
  • Lord_TansheronLord_Tansheron Member Posts: 4,211
    My problem with Rangers is purely mechanical.

    I get the lore behind it. Woodsmen and all that. Okay.

    But I just find them to boil down to Fighters with some minor perks (and some major disadvantages) in terms of how they play. That's sad.
  • jesterdesujesterdesu Member Posts: 373

    Lot's of people love and play Rangers. I hate these obvious DAE questions.

    My personal fave is a Crossbow Archer, Half-Elven. Insane damage in BG2 with Firetooth.

    If it were obvious to me I might have phrased the title differently. I see much more talk of things like kensai/mage, zerker/cleric and felt pure rangers (or their kits) were a bit overlooked.

    I'm actually glad I made the topic as its at least shown that a few others out there appreciate the ranger for his flavour.
    Aerakar
  • jesterdesujesterdesu Member Posts: 373

    My problem with Rangers is purely mechanical.

    I get the lore behind it. Woodsmen and all that. Okay.

    But I just find them to boil down to Fighters with some minor perks (and some major disadvantages) in terms of how they play. That's sad.

    They are certainly very fightery... What major disadvantages tho? Inability to dual?

    I like what they did in nwn2 where they get detect trap as a class skill and where tracking in brought in... Makes them excellent scouts.
    Aerakar
Sign In or Register to comment.