Hehe, so much for being excellent against eachother, ay @wandering_ranger? :P Chill out, read some more posts, get to know the place and grow to realize this is not the kinda forum where you get points for being "cool".
I'll put my 2 cents on the matter, but that will be my only comment on it, because things start to heat up a little...
@Wandering_Ranger You might be underestimating the Called Shot ability. On hit, it drains Strength, thac0 and save vs spell. That's huge. With this ability, your mage will make Feeblemind stick a lot more often... The bigger enemy won't hit as hard either (strength and thac0 drain). This is something a stalker can't easily replicate.
It's true that, on the damage output front, other classes and kits will (eventually) outdamage them, but they still very strong in ToB (they can go up to 300 damage per round, nothing to scoff at). So, depending on the situation, archers can be better than stalkers, and still deal a huge amount of damage...
The issue is that a stalker can shoot these arrows too. As can a rogue, or a fighter, or shaman. You dismiss the starting items argument then argue that it's items that others can also use which make the archer strong(!).
Yes, Stalkers can use arrows. What they can't do is significant damage with them, because without the Archer's damage bonuses, they just don't keep up with enemy HP through the game. You keep saying that the Archer is a disk one nuke, but that's actually not true in the slightest, both because their damage bonus isn't that imposing compared to other fighter classes early, and because unlike your average fighter type, they'll keep getting more damaging over time. It's what allows them to keep ranged combat relevant while melee fighters keep getting stronger through STR bonuses and higher weapon enchantments, Archers get their kit bonus. Without those, Stalkers and other warriors can't compete ranged, so "they get those arrows too" isn't a good refutation. Also take into consideration that Archers probably have the best to hit bonuses of any class, and they'll have a much easier time hitting difficult bosses like dragons.
Corwin cannot do half the things Valygar can do well, and there really is no contest on the matter. Valygar is simply superior, as definitively proven above. You make bold statements like "Corwin would win if she was in it," then have virtually nothing to back it when challenged. You listed a bunch of items that would make Corwin viable. Well, we can do the same for any character.
She doesn't need to do the things Valygar can do well, because she has her own niche. I find it strange that above, you said that "We cannot really argue which [class] is better", but you're also pretty determined to tear down the Archer class, but whatever. What you haven't taken into consideration is that although other classes can start to catch up in DPS, they can't do so from range. That means a few things. For one, it keeps kiting relevant into Throne of Bhaal, whereas wearing down a Fire Giant with two pips in longbow, say, would take forever for your average Stalker to pull off. An Archer can have them down in two rounds of attacks, and thanks to Boots of Speed not take a hit in the process. And spellcasters are no problem, either, since an Archer can just take a few steps away and Hide in Shadows to cancel the spell. Stalker can do this too, of course, but from melee they've got farther to walk to get out of sight. Honestly, I don't think either Corwin or Valygar can tank so well, but the difference is Corwin has an easier time not being a tank. Valygar needs someone else to do that for him while he backstabs, Corwin just needs the Boots of Speed.
Yes, Stalkers can use arrows. What they can't do is significant damage with them, because without the Archer's damage bonuses, they just don't keep up with enemy HP through the game.
Except he wasn't arguing so much for damage bonuses as he was for utility arrows. The stalker, by the time these things matter, will hit almost as much as the archer. The damage isn't in question: utility is.
Also, once again, this is not a class debate. This is a specific character debate where all things must be taken into account.
As I have stated, on everything that is objectively measurable, Valygar wins. Classes are subjective. Pointing out the virtues of the archer does not take away from the quality of the stalker (and vice versa). Each class can be strong. *I* prefer the stalker and I have stated why. Skatan prefers the archer and he has stated why. This is all fine.
But this is not a debate about archer VS stalker. It is about the specific rangers. Once again: in all fields that cannot be disputed by subjective interpretation, Valygar simply wins (especially over Corwin). On everything else, it's irrelevant because it is left open to interpretation.
What got me about Skatan's statement was that he said "if she was in it, she would win." So brazen. So smug. So self-assured. No, she *absolutely* wouldn't. In fact, not only would she not win, she would come in at dead last. That is what the debate is about. Now, feel free and run a poll and see. But as I said, he/you won't, because it would certainly prove your claims wrong.
Why would a stalker use a longbow against fire giants, though? I've actually used Valygar to dispatch the giants at the temple by backstabbing. Goes very quickly with CF backstabs, thanks to the stun effect. (and that was in an SCS/Ascension run)
That's still riskier than kiting, especially if there's more than one giant nearby. Not to say it can't work, but it's more likely something goes wrong.
But this is not a debate about archer VS stalker. It is about the specific rangers. Once again: in all fields that cannot be disputed by subjective interpretation, Valygar simply wins (especially over Corwin). On everything else, it's irrelevant because it is left open to interpretation.
"This is not a debate about archer" "The archer is a one trick pony"
There's definitely some motte and bailey fallacy here. And it's inane to argue that we should simply dismiss class and playstyle, because that basically means you're attempting to cram a ceterus paribus assumption into this debate that doesn't belong. "Baeloth is garbage because of his low HP/Thaco" is something you could say if you completely ignored playstyle. You simply can't assess characters' worth by pretending they should all fit the same role.
What got me about Skatan's statement was that he said "if she was in it, she would win." So brazen. So smug. So self-assured. No, she *absolutely* wouldn't. In fact, not only would she not win, she would come in at dead last. That is what the debate is about. Now, feel free and run a poll and see. But as I said, he/you won't, because it would certainly prove your claims wrong.
Proof enough that somebody has taken this way too personally and needs a chill pill, from where I'm standing.
What got me about Skatan's statement was that he said "if she was in it, she would win." So brazen. So smug. So self-assured. No, she *absolutely* wouldn't. In fact, not only would she not win, she would come in at dead last. That is what the debate is about. Now, feel free and run a poll and see. But as I said, he/you won't, because it would certainly prove your claims wrong.
I've already left this debate, but when someone calls me out like this I find it difficult not to respond. I will keep it civil though and just point out that you @Wandering_Ranger have been rather smug, brazen and self-assured since the beginning. You make good points indeed, but you also make it obvious to all that you thoroughly believe you are correct and everyone else (specifically me) is wrong. Which is ok, you are free to feel Valy is the best, but don't call me out for being brazen 'cause that's just being a hypocrite.
Noone put any limits to this poll other than you. Noone has tried to convince others what can or cannot be used to determine "best" than you. I've put forward my opinions and in some cases debated yours, but I never tried to limit what you were "allowed" to think, feel or state. Give everyone else the same courtesy please.
Now cheers, mate. Chill a bit, read some more threads. Look at your peers in here and realize this is friendly place.
EDIT: a funny side-note: this thread made me create an archer who uses predominately melee. She rushed through BG1 just now and just moved into SoD. There were a lot of juggling with rep trying to avoid falling, and I even experimented with the fallen status which I have never used before. Since they essentially turn into kitless base fighters with limits from rangers I tried to test if that would mean I could specialize in weapons during being fallen, then use the ranger stronghold to regain ranger status in BG2 with specialization in melee weapons. Didn't work unfortunately. Would have been a kinda interresting character concept. Anyways, back to SoD then.
Noone put any limits to this poll other than you. Noone has tried to convince others what can or cannot be used to determine "best" than you. I've put forward my opinions and in some cases debated yours, but I never tried to limit what you were "allowed" to think, feel or state. Give everyone else the same courtesy please.
Chimaera said "Why would a stalker use a longbow against fire giants, though? I've actually used Valygar to dispatch the giants at the temple by backstabbing. Goes very quickly with CF backstabs, thanks to the stun effect. (and that was in an SCS/Ascension run)." This is a valid point. Horrid Wilting then tried to rebuke it with "That's still riskier than kiting, especially if there's more than one giant nearby. Not to say it can't work, but it's more likely something goes wrong."
Says who? Chimaera's point is perfectly valid. Here, we see exactly what you are talking about: a case of someone telling someone else their PLAYSTYLE is "wrong." Note that not once have I done this.
This is my entire point that, one that I keep coming back to. This is a wholly subjective argument. You and Horrid Wilting are the ones who have narrowed this discussion by making it all about *class,* whereas *I* have repeatedly said that that cannot be the only thing to be taken into account here (as it is NOT what this poll is asking). And yet you keep pushing the class point, never actually refuting anything other than pushing the virtues of the archer. Strength of the archer does not take away the strength of the stalker. It is wholly dependent on playstyle. You cannot say the archer is better than the stalker (nor it is what is in question in this thread). It's a subjective point. I think the stalker is better because it fits my playstyle better. End of story. No point bringing up archer VS stalker because we aren't discussing archer VS stalker, we are discussing rangers (specifically Valygar VS Corwin). I have said this so many times that at this point what you are doing must be considered trolling.
People like you and Horrid Wilting cannot be reasoned with because you refuse to see the other side, and then you condescendingly tell me to "chill a bit," making out like I am some sort of aggressor who is pushing his opinion on others while it is you who has done exactly that, beginning with your opening comment on this thread and proceeding from there. It's truly laughable. I think for the most productive outcome it may be best if you actually do as you said you would and leave this debate. I cannot say it has been a pleasure, and I look forward to *not* conversing with you or your type again. You are the exact reason I have stayed away from forums such as these. The community so far has been great but there's always that "one guy." I had the misfortune of running into him (actually two of him) in one thread(!).
Minsc. Because Minsc. The totality that is Minsc minus, say, the kit, class, stats, personality, picture, voice, theoretical early-game, mid-game, or late-game equipment, or anything else I don't fancy right this minute and can change at will with EEkeeper and EE-NPC. That's me being objective. About a single-player game. On an anonymous internet forum. During my lunch break.
Finally some love for Minsc for all the points above and we cant forget Boo which serves as his phylactery...I admit valagyr is great but his RP and voice is awful and depresses me enough it throws off my gameplay...however I do plan to use him soon for m next playthrough lol
Bishop's not bad, a great foil to most of my characters. But normally, by that point I'm so invested in Khelgar and Neeshka that I lack room for him when Sand finally makes the picture.
I love that cynical moon elf. He's not depressing like Xan.
I wish I had checked back on this topic before the argument got so heated. As a general rule, it's best not to dissect other people's posts; just stay focused on the subject itself. If you're quoting somebody while disagreeing with them, there's a decent chance you're concentrating more on the other poster's rhetoric than anything else. The point of this discussion is to discuss rangers, not to win any debates.
If somebody is breaking the Site Rules, of course, don't fight it out in the thread; just report the post using the "Flag" option at the bottom right of the post. Or send a personal message to a moderator. We'll handle the matter in private.
But since the argument has died down, I'll say that Corwin is extremely effective, and I would vote her as the best of the saga if she weren't limited to SoD. Siege of Dragonspear became massively easier once I took her in (after Rasaad got chunked by a critical hit), and when Edwin buffed her with Enchanted Weapon, she was able to take down the final boss almost single-handedly.
I've taken Archers all the way to Throne of Bhaal, and they proved pretty spectacular. Their weakness in melee combat never became a problem, as they could always reposition themselves while my other party members and summons kept the enemy occupied. @Lord_Tansheron is a longtime fan of the Archer kit and has often touted it as one of the best classes in the game.
One important thing about Valygar that I don't think has come: Valygar comes with two pips in katanas right off the bat, which means he doesn't have to wait until higher levels, as Minsc does, before he can get full APR from Celestial Fury.
I just liked Valygar's storyline better, and think it could have been even BETTER. (plus I am a bit biased AGAINST arcane users- and he fits the role-similar to @WarChiefZeke and his WSlayer Ishlilka NPC mod.)
I think it depends on what you're looking for. Is your goal powergaming? Purely roleplaying? And with that, which one fits in the party? Do you want a sneaky ranger, a badass melee or ranged one? I usually EEKeeper Kivan into an archer, but even then I rarely used him. Or rangers at all, really, except maybe for Minsc. Valygar doesn't really fit in every party, attitude-wise.
I also never really took much stock in archers as a kit btw, until I met Corwin. Headshots for dayzzz. Made me want to play an archer Charname.
Corwin is the most lethal ranger in the saga, and the only SoD NPC who makes the Belhifet fight easy on Core+. However, I despise her as a person more than any other NPC across the saga (tied with Safana MAYBE).
The other three are pretty closely matched, but I think Kivan gets a slight edge. He's one of the biggest assets you can have in BG1. Minsc is a berserking menace in melee but has the poorest dexterity, the least useful racial enemy and a wasted quick item slot (I love you boo, but yeah). Valygar's thing is the backstabbing, but I find backstabbing too much of a chore. Even if they both take two pips in longbows they will never be as good at ranged because Kivan also has his Elven racial bonus. And interestingly, Kivan is one of the very few NPCs across the saga who don't "cheat" (no extra stats or abilities, no illegal class combinations etc).
Hm, other NPCs that don't have unique stuff...Skie, certainly. And Imoen doesn't have extra abilities that I can think of. I don't use Xzar and Montaron much, but I don't remember them having anything, nor Khalid. Garrick is too normal to be useful a lot of the time. I don't think Shar-Teel or Korgan have anything unusual. Between custom items, extra stats, and various special abilities, that may be it, actually.
Ignoring SoD NPCs... mechanically speaking, Valygar is the strongest ranger. His 18 Dex is better than Minsc's 18/98 Str in a game with so many strength-boosters, his starting proficiencies are more useful, his starting gear is phenomenal, and Stalker is a straight upgrade over unkitted Ranger.
But Kivan is the *best* ranger, because he's the best archer in BG1, (tied with Coran, maybe), and archery is the most powerful force in the BG1 universe.
Edit: in fact, a few weeks back I ranked the 17 vanilla BG2 NPCs from a powergame perspective and had Minsc 15th, ahead only of Yoshimo and Cernd. And Yoshimo would jump him if he reliably got HLAs or stuck around long enough for a fighter dual-class to make sense.
Minsc is a *lot* better in BG1, though, where that 18/98 Str is truly special and everyone has garbage Dex.
Why? The only bonus Coran's 20 Dex provides over Kivan's 17 Dex is... +1 ranged THACO. Which is completely offset by the fact that as a pureclass ranger, Kivan is almost always a level higher in his fighter class. Samesies.
After that, Coran has 1 point better AC, Kivan has +100 lbs carrying capacity, +1 THACO / +3 damage as a melee backup and better HP. Kivan can also wield composite long bows and Coran can't. Coran has his thief skills, but they're not really relevant to how the two compare as archers, which is "basically identical". Kivan is also available a *lot* earlier.
In what way does Coran outclass Kivan as an archer? Really all he has going for him is the 20 dex vs. 17 dex, and like I said, that's a whopping +1 THACO difference.
Interesting how these types of discussions usually go to who's the most powerful or useful. I still say 'best' ranger to me is background and personality., and then fit with CHARNAME's theme. I was glad to see many here go with this as well, regardless of their choice.
Comments
@Wandering_Ranger You might be underestimating the Called Shot ability. On hit, it drains Strength, thac0 and save vs spell. That's huge. With this ability, your mage will make Feeblemind stick a lot more often... The bigger enemy won't hit as hard either (strength and thac0 drain). This is something a stalker can't easily replicate.
It's true that, on the damage output front, other classes and kits will (eventually) outdamage them, but they still very strong in ToB (they can go up to 300 damage per round, nothing to scoff at). So, depending on the situation, archers can be better than stalkers, and still deal a huge amount of damage...
There's definitely some motte and bailey fallacy here. And it's inane to argue that we should simply dismiss class and playstyle, because that basically means you're attempting to cram a ceterus paribus assumption into this debate that doesn't belong. "Baeloth is garbage because of his low HP/Thaco" is something you could say if you completely ignored playstyle. You simply can't assess characters' worth by pretending they should all fit the same role. Proof enough that somebody has taken this way too personally and needs a chill pill, from where I'm standing.
Noone put any limits to this poll other than you. Noone has tried to convince others what can or cannot be used to determine "best" than you. I've put forward my opinions and in some cases debated yours, but I never tried to limit what you were "allowed" to think, feel or state. Give everyone else the same courtesy please.
Now cheers, mate. Chill a bit, read some more threads. Look at your peers in here and realize this is friendly place.
EDIT: a funny side-note: this thread made me create an archer who uses predominately melee. She rushed through BG1 just now and just moved into SoD. There were a lot of juggling with rep trying to avoid falling, and I even experimented with the fallen status which I have never used before. Since they essentially turn into kitless base fighters with limits from rangers I tried to test if that would mean I could specialize in weapons during being fallen, then use the ranger stronghold to regain ranger status in BG2 with specialization in melee weapons. Didn't work unfortunately. Would have been a kinda interresting character concept. Anyways, back to SoD then.
"I left the forest to work with fools. I must be mad."
Minsc. Because Minsc. The totality that is Minsc minus, say, the kit, class, stats, personality, picture, voice, theoretical early-game, mid-game, or late-game equipment, or anything else I don't fancy right this minute and can change at will with EEkeeper and EE-NPC. That's me being objective. About a single-player game. On an anonymous internet forum. During my lunch break.
I love that cynical moon elf. He's not depressing like Xan.
If somebody is breaking the Site Rules, of course, don't fight it out in the thread; just report the post using the "Flag" option at the bottom right of the post. Or send a personal message to a moderator. We'll handle the matter in private.
But since the argument has died down, I'll say that Corwin is extremely effective, and I would vote her as the best of the saga if she weren't limited to SoD. Siege of Dragonspear became massively easier once I took her in (after Rasaad got chunked by a critical hit), and when Edwin buffed her with Enchanted Weapon, she was able to take down the final boss almost single-handedly.
I've taken Archers all the way to Throne of Bhaal, and they proved pretty spectacular. Their weakness in melee combat never became a problem, as they could always reposition themselves while my other party members and summons kept the enemy occupied. @Lord_Tansheron is a longtime fan of the Archer kit and has often touted it as one of the best classes in the game.
One important thing about Valygar that I don't think has come: Valygar comes with two pips in katanas right off the bat, which means he doesn't have to wait until higher levels, as Minsc does, before he can get full APR from Celestial Fury.
I think it depends on what you're looking for. Is your goal powergaming? Purely roleplaying? And with that, which one fits in the party? Do you want a sneaky ranger, a badass melee or ranged one? I usually EEKeeper Kivan into an archer, but even then I rarely used him. Or rangers at all, really, except maybe for Minsc. Valygar doesn't really fit in every party, attitude-wise.
I also never really took much stock in archers as a kit btw, until I met Corwin. Headshots for dayzzz. Made me want to play an archer Charname.
The other three are pretty closely matched, but I think Kivan gets a slight edge. He's one of the biggest assets you can have in BG1. Minsc is a berserking menace in melee but has the poorest dexterity, the least useful racial enemy and a wasted quick item slot (I love you boo, but yeah). Valygar's thing is the backstabbing, but I find backstabbing too much of a chore. Even if they both take two pips in longbows they will never be as good at ranged because Kivan also has his Elven racial bonus. And interestingly, Kivan is one of the very few NPCs across the saga who don't "cheat" (no extra stats or abilities, no illegal class combinations etc).
"Why isn't he jolly? WHY ISN'T HE JOLLY?!"
And in Imoen's defense, she already has AMAZING stats, adding on something special would have been too much. The others, though...
But Kivan is the *best* ranger, because he's the best archer in BG1, (tied with Coran, maybe), and archery is the most powerful force in the BG1 universe.
Edit: in fact, a few weeks back I ranked the 17 vanilla BG2 NPCs from a powergame perspective and had Minsc 15th, ahead only of Yoshimo and Cernd. And Yoshimo would jump him if he reliably got HLAs or stuck around long enough for a fighter dual-class to make sense.
Minsc is a *lot* better in BG1, though, where that 18/98 Str is truly special and everyone has garbage Dex.
After that, Coran has 1 point better AC, Kivan has +100 lbs carrying capacity, +1 THACO / +3 damage as a melee backup and better HP. Kivan can also wield composite long bows and Coran can't. Coran has his thief skills, but they're not really relevant to how the two compare as archers, which is "basically identical". Kivan is also available a *lot* earlier.
In what way does Coran outclass Kivan as an archer? Really all he has going for him is the 20 dex vs. 17 dex, and like I said, that's a whopping +1 THACO difference.