Paladin (Undead Hunter) or Ranger (Archer)?

Philhelm

I want to play through the campaign as an undead hunter/vampire hunter archetype with crossbows being the primary weapon, but I can't quite decide how to go about it. The obvious choices would be Undead Hunter, or an Archer with vampires chosen as the racial enemy. Which one would be better overall?

My current thoughts on the two kits are as follows:

UNDEAD HUNTER:
* Immunity to Hold and Level Drain.
* +3 to hit and damage against ALL undead.
* Better proficiency in melee.
* Turn Undead, Protection Against Evil, Detect Alignment.
* Better spell selection (in my opinion).
* Ability to equip heavy armor.
* Ability to use the Holy Avenger (if melee becomes necessary).
* Better saves? I've read that the saving throws are bugged, but do paladins at least receive better saves?
* Most likely a higher Charisma, which is good for the party leader.

ARCHER:
* Significant boost to THAC0 and damage when using the crossbow.
* Stealth.
* Bonus vs. vampires (although, I'm not exactly certain what the bonus would be).
* Called Shot.

It seems that the Undead Hunter would be more versatile, while the Archer would have a far superior THAC0 and damage modifier with the crossbow. What say you?

chickenhed

I'd love to hear from some BG vets on an archer with a crossbow. I always wanted to know if it was possible to make an xbow (like firetooth from BG2) as powerful as the short and long bow alternatives.

As to your question:

If you took xbows out of being a requirement, then archer all the way. They turn into Gatling guns later and are a lot of fun.

Undead hunters, however, are also awesome. But not as much ranged. Their immunities to hold and level drain are excellent when in the thick of things, and not as much from ranged. As you pointed out, you may use holy avenger? What's really fun with ranged characters is using two handers as backup weapons since you can't have dual weapons or a shield equipped when a ranged weapon is equipped. That being the case, I found combat a bit more smooth and fun with a character like this by taking a few pot shots from ranged (with your xbow) and then charging into the frey with your holy avenger. All without opening your inventory to swap weapons.

Brude

I loved rangers in BG1 so I thought the archer would be the perfect kit for me. But in the end I found it really, really boring.

Sure, they'll pump out a ton of damage but there is really no "style" to their play, because their their focus is so narrow and their utilty is non-existent. You can set their AI script to 'Ranger Ranged' and leave them alone for most of the game.

That's fine for some random NPC, but for the PC it ended up feeling less than epic. Great damage, but not engaging.

Philhelm

Well, I created an Undead Hunter and an Archer in Baldur's Gate 2: Throne of Bhaal, just to see the stats. Both characters had 18 DEX, started at around level 16, and had a +2 light crossbow as part of their default equipment. The Undead Hunter's THAC0 with the crossbow was -3, while the Archer's THAC0 was -9, which was a significant difference. Both characters had the Boots of Speed as default, and had 3 attacks per round, so it looks like the Archer's Grand Mastery had no effect in that area. I'm wondering how much THAC0 is really necessary for a ranged character.

CaptRory

Well, if you look at any of the Fighter-Types (Fighters, Paladins, Rangers) they can be broken down to Hitting Things and Shooting Things. Rogues mix it up with skill use and backstabs. Anyone with serious magic (Bards, Mages, Clerics, Druids) can really change it up just by swapping their spells around.


Baldur's Gate is a Team Game unless you're looking to solo it with just the PC. My cavalier walks up and hits things with a big honkin' two handed sword. That's pretty much all he does.

As per your concept, both the Undead Hunter Paladin and the Archer with Favored Enemy: Vampire sound great. This sounds like a fun duo concept, take both of them, make it a multiplayer game, and you can build a team around the concept if you wanted.

Quartz

Philhelm said:

* Bonus vs. vampires (although, I'm not exactly certain what the bonus would be).

I believe Ranger Racial Enemy bonus is +4 to hit (THAC0) [I know this part for sure] and +4 to damage [I think, not positive].

Philhelm said:

* Better saves? I've read that the saving throws are bugged, but do paladins at least receive better saves?

You're thinking of: Saving Throws are only bugged for NPCs in BG1. When you pick them up, their Saving Throws are messed up for all Shorty and Paladin characters. Upon level up the Saving Throws are fixed.

This obviously has nothing to do with your PC, and even if it did, it would fix itself upon leveling up. Long story short yes, you would have better saving throws by -2 I believe due to being a Paladin.

Brude said:

I loved rangers in BG1 so I thought the archer would be the perfect kit for me. But in the end I found it really, really boring.

Sure, they'll pump out a ton of damage but there is really no "style" to their play, because their their focus is so narrow and their utilty is non-existent. You can set their AI script to 'Ranger Ranged' and leave them alone for most of the game.

That's fine for some random NPC, but for the PC it ended up feeling less than epic. Great damage, but not engaging.

Agreed. Called Shot needs tweaking, at some levels it's totally interesting and other levels it's totally uninteresting.

elminster

I would go with an undead hunter with a crossbow. It just seems more badass. Plus you can always switch up to a two handed sword if you run into something that your crossbow can't handle.

reedmilfam

Undead Hunter also gets the heavy armor, for greater epic-ness.

I'm not sure a melee fighter is any more interesting (or less) than an archer. I sort of want to play an archer, so I'm gonna! As for the Undead Hunter, I'd imagine doom knights and things of that nature would fall fast, too!

Philhelm said:

Well, I created an Undead Hunter and an Archer in Baldur's Gate 2: Throne of Bhaal, just to see the stats. Both characters had 18 DEX, started at around level 16, and had a +2 light crossbow as part of their default equipment. The Undead Hunter's THAC0 with the crossbow was -3, while the Archer's THAC0 was -9, which was a significant difference. Both characters had the Boots of Speed as default, and had 3 attacks per round, so it looks like the Archer's Grand Mastery had no effect in that area. I'm wondering how much THAC0 is really necessary for a ranged character.

If you take the THAC0 of -3, add the +3 against undead for the class and the +4 for vampires for favored enemy, you have -10; I'm thinking, against the ONE foe, you're better as the Undead Hunter. Somebody check my math and conclusion; I'm not a good metagamer.

When a dragon shows up, though... You'll overcome and adapt!

Survey says: Undead Hunter

AHF

reedmilfam said:

Undead Hunter also gets the heavy armor, for greater epic-ness.

This actually made a real difference in my current run through. I have an archer, Anomen and a F/M/T for my melee characters and the archer definitely is significantly more vulnerable due to the inferior armor.

I'm not sure a melee fighter is any more interesting (or less) than an archer. I sort of want to play an archer, so I'm gonna! As for the Undead Hunter, I'd imagine doom knights and things of that nature would fall fast, too!

If you take the THAC0 of -3, add the +3 against undead for the class and the +4 for vampires for favored enemy, you have -10; I'm thinking, against the ONE foe, you're better as the Undead Hunter. Somebody check my math and conclusion; I'm not a good metagamer.

I think you are mixing the two:

Archer - Racial Enemy: Vampire +4 - Base thac0: -9. Against vampire: -13.
Undead Hunter - Class Bonus Vs Undead: +3 - Base thac0: -3; against undead: -6.

reedmilfam

@AHF I am mixing the two. Dang. Anyway, damage dealt will favor the archer because of the grand mastery.

CaptRory

Doesn't the archer get the hidey/sneakey thief skills though? Playing Smart with Strike and Fade attacks can offset weaker armor.

Gilgalahad

I always prefer undead hunter myself as their damage is against ALL undead rather than just having 1 racial enemy. The immunity to hold and lvl drain is a must when facing many undead that give you those statuses like vampires(lvl drain), ghast(or is ghouls....or both hold), those annoying mist types whose names i forget who also lvl drain etc etc. lots of undead in BG2.
True archers are nasty as i've gone through the game before as a ranger but i had much less trouble plowing undead with my pally than the ranger. But then again i am very biased for pally's as they're my favorite class lol.

AHF

CaptRory said:

Doesn't the archer get the hidey/sneakey thief skills though? Playing Smart with Strike and Fade attacks can offset weaker armor.

I didn't center my group's strategy around the archer. He generally only got into melee when an enemy attacked him - otherwise he was just unloading on enemies from afar. Since some of my other characters were engaging in melee, there was no opportunity to fade. Likewise, I generally only noticed he was in melee when one or more attackers started hitting him so by that time there isn't much opportunity to run and hide in shadows. The difference I noticed was more along the lines of how much easier the archer was to hit (in part because he was holding a missile weapon when he started being hit, but it also applied to missile attacks directed at him) than anomen or the charname.

@Gilgalahad - I agree the +3 to all undead is better than the +4/+4 against vampires. For damage and thac0, though, the archer bonuses will outweigh the +3 by level 12 and those bonuses apply against every opponent - not just the undead. So as far as who is the better attacker, it will always be the archer with a missile attack and never the archer with melee weapons.

I think it depends more on whether the player wants a melee character, a mixed melee/ranged character, or a range focused character.

Gilgalahad

@ahf i agree with you that a lot depends on individual preferences. I prefer to go nose to nose especially vs undead although i wish they would add a new paladin spell called "protection from undead bad breath" cause let me tell you, 1 whiff of that and you gag and can't fight for 2 rounds hehe.

CaptRory

AHF said:

CaptRory said:

Doesn't the archer get the hidey/sneakey thief skills though? Playing Smart with Strike and Fade attacks can offset weaker armor.

I didn't center my group's strategy around the archer. He generally only got into melee when an enemy attacked him - otherwise he was just unloading on enemies from afar. Since some of my other characters were engaging in melee, there was no opportunity to fade. Likewise, I generally only noticed he was in melee when one or more attackers started hitting him so by that time there isn't much opportunity to run and hide in shadows. The difference I noticed was more along the lines of how much easier the archer was to hit (in part because he was holding a missile weapon when he started being hit, but it also applied to missile attacks directed at him) than anomen or the charname.

@Gilgalahad - I agree the +3 to all undead is better than the +4/+4 against vampires. For damage and thac0, though, the archer bonuses will outweigh the +3 by level 12 and those bonuses apply against every opponent - not just the undead. So as far as who is the better attacker, it will always be the archer with a missile attack and never the archer with melee weapons.

I think it depends more on whether the player wants a melee character, a mixed melee/ranged character, or a range focused character.

That's fair. I just wanted to point out that weaker armor isn't necessarily a big issue. You can also get a mage to cast an armor buff. I think one was called Spirit Armor or something like that.

Once you hit Throne of Bhaal AC doesn't matter much 'cause everyone's THAC0 is so high or they just fling fireballs at your head.

AHF

I would say in TOB, thac0 doesn't matter nearly as much. I just finished the TOB portion of this runthrough this week so I can say that the AC difference was still a factor for survivability for the archer even at the end of the game. During the Ascension final battle, any melee character is at risk if they can't stoneskin, PFMW, etc. but the archer was the guy who had to run away even from the demons if they came to melee.

Spirit armor is a good recommendation, though. It is extremely useful for mages, kensai, archers, etc. for almost the entire game. By late game the AC boost doesn't do anything more than the shadow dragon armor so it isn't useful anymore.

Isair

Armor of faith combined with hardness is great for combating meele damage once you're in the later stages of the game.

Archers with crossbows are fantastic, I've played an archer through in a previous game. Crossbow + Bolts of lightning + whirlwind is sheer destruction once you gain epic levels & can use it. I never really had a problem with my archer being hit, as with most ranged only characters I made sure to keep him on the backlines.

I saying that I'm planing to play through EE first as a blackguard & second as an undead hunter. Solely because I haven't before. I'll probably have my undead hunter twf though since I'll have Keldorn come BG2.

Philhelm

elminster said:

I would go with an undead hunter with a crossbow. It just seems more badass. Plus you can always switch up to a two handed sword if you run into something that your crossbow can't handle.

Yeah, it does seem more badass. I think I'll go with the Undead Hunter. Granted, the Archer would be better overall with the crossbow, but the Undead Hunter would have more versatility and ruggedness.