Skip to content

best archer: fighter or ranger?

orosiusorosius Member Posts: 45
in Archive (General Discussion)
Who turns out to be the best archer? Is it the fighter with grandmastery in a bow or the ranger archer kit? Why?
«1

Comments

  • PantalionPantalion Member Posts: 2,137
    I seem to recall that Archers can get Grand Mastery in ranged weapons as well, but not specialise in other weapons. The Fighter is by far the more rounded character, but the Archer is pretty much the king of specialisation there.
  • ShinShin Member Posts: 2,345
    As Pantalion says, the archer is definitely better at archery. On top of grandmastery they get bonuses to hit and damage with ranged weapons, and the called shot ability.
  • Oxford_GuyOxford_Guy Member Posts: 3,729
    edited November 2012
    An Elf Archer would be the best archer (additional +1 THAC0 with bows and additional stealth bonus (or do only thieves benefit from the elf stealth bonus?), though they only get the bow bonus for short and longbows, not crossbows
  • MungriMungri Member Posts: 1,645
    Elf archers get a double bonus from their racial benefit to bows, and from their 19 dexterity. 19 dex gives an aditional +1 thaco to ranged damage, and elves have a racial +1 bonus as well.
  • reedmilfamreedmilfam Member Posts: 2,808
    This one isn't even close because of the Archer Kit. Both get Grand Mastery at the same point, but the damage and to hit bonuses for the archer are cumulative and crazy-good. Also, the fighter gets none of the special attacks that come for the archer, and those make the comparison downright unfair.
  • MungriMungri Member Posts: 1,645
    edited November 2012
    I just tested out a high level archer with nothing but greater whirlwind attack HLAs. That thing is bloody nasty!

    I dont know if you keep your draw upon holy might power that late in the game, but I had it on my test archer and it gave him 25 dex, plus called shot, plus GWW = pew pew pew pew pew pew 10 arrows per round with archer bonuses and 25 dexterity.
  • reedmilfamreedmilfam Member Posts: 2,808
    @Mungri - I plan to play an archer, just to enjoy being very deadly for once! And to interrupt mages with the spell: PINCUSHION

    image

    Disclaimer: PINCUSHION is not an actual spell and is not included in BG:EE.
  • SchneidendSchneidend Member Posts: 3,190
    As others have pointed out, the Archer kit is the unquestioned master here.
  • QuartzQuartz Member Posts: 3,853
    I dig that there are six arrows in his crotch.
  • DragonspearDragonspear Member Posts: 1,838
    No arrows to his knee though.....

    Sorry the joke had to be made even though I never played Skyrim
  • MungriMungri Member Posts: 1,645
    edited November 2012
    I used to be an adventurer just like you, but then I took 6 arrows to the balls.
  • MungriMungri Member Posts: 1,645
    Just wondering if anyone else has played an archer, for HLAs is it worth taking anything other than GWW on each level up?
  • AHFAHF Member Posts: 1,376
    Mungri said:

    Just wondering if anyone else has played an archer, for HLAs is it worth taking anything other than GWW on each level up?

    The critical attack is also worthwhile. An improved haste on an archer means 10 attacks per round for the duration of the improved haste. The critical attack HLA means you automatically hit on all 10 hits and obviously increases damages for any opponent that is vulnerable. GWW does nothing for an improved hasted archer. Damage reduction and perhaps magic resistance could be useful as well.

  • reedmilfamreedmilfam Member Posts: 2,808
    You'd be safer against a M-60, +5 than a hasted archer.

    I had a thought yesterday; it seems to me that there really is no reason to play anything that isn't a kit, at least as far as fighters and rangers go.
  • Awong124Awong124 Member Posts: 2,643
    reedmilfam said:

    You'd be safer against a M-60, +5 than a hasted archer.

    I had a thought yesterday; it seems to me that there really is no reason to play anything that isn't a kit, at least as far as fighters and rangers go.

    Thief is the only class I can see that there is incentive to be pure class.
  • TanthalasTanthalas Member Posts: 6,738
    Well, on my first playthrough of BG2 I didn't use any of the Ranger kits because I didn't like that none of them allowed me to wear heavy armor.
  • reedmilfamreedmilfam Member Posts: 2,808
    @Tanthalas - I didn't realize they could wear heavy armor until Minsc got away with it. P&P rules limit ranger armor. Besides, Minsc isn't really a ranger - he's delusional after the head wound. He is a berserker!
  • MungriMungri Member Posts: 1,645
    edited November 2012
    Awong124 said:

    reedmilfam said:

    You'd be safer against a M-60, +5 than a hasted archer.

    I had a thought yesterday; it seems to me that there really is no reason to play anything that isn't a kit, at least as far as fighters and rangers go.

    Thief is the only class I can see that there is incentive to be pure class.
    For a pure thief I'd rather be an Assassin or Bounty Hunter. Both are much better than a plain thief. Swashbucklers are purely dual class fodder.

    @Tanthalas in every later edition of D&D rangers could no longer wear heavy armor. I'm net even sure they were meant to in AD&D2. Now the thing is I'd rather have a plain fighter than a ranger, and I'll definitely make space for an Archer in any group, they dont need heavy armor since they will be mostly using ranged weapons.
  • TanthalasTanthalas Member Posts: 6,738
    edited November 2012
    reedmilfam said:

    @Tanthalas - I didn't realize they could wear heavy armor until Minsc got away with it. P&P rules limit ranger armor. Besides, Minsc isn't really a ranger - he's delusional after the head wound. He is a berserker!

    Was the armor limitation already in 2e rules? In 3e rules they could always just get the feat for it.

    EDIT: wikipedia says they could wear any armor.
  • Awong124Awong124 Member Posts: 2,643
    Mungri said:

    Awong124 said:

    reedmilfam said:

    You'd be safer against a M-60, +5 than a hasted archer.

    I had a thought yesterday; it seems to me that there really is no reason to play anything that isn't a kit, at least as far as fighters and rangers go.

    Thief is the only class I can see that there is incentive to be pure class.
    For a pure thief I'd rather be an Assassin or Bounty Hunter. Both are much better than a plain thief. Swashbucklers are purely dual class fodder.
    If you go pure class, then a kit is better, because you'd eventually get enough thief points anyway. But if you plan to dual, then the kits don't give enough points. You could go with Swashbuckler then dual, but then you can't backstab.
  • MungriMungri Member Posts: 1,645
    edited November 2012
    Yea, but it depends on whether you want to backstab, or have -3 AC and +2 hit rolls on your dual class.

    Theres no point to dualing assassins or bounty hunters anyway as they dont get their major kit bonuses until much higher levels (7x backstabs, or super strong traps).
  • Awong124Awong124 Member Posts: 2,643
    edited November 2012
    Exactly, that's the incentive to not use kits if you plan on dual classing a thief. I personally would rather have backstab, because backstabbing is fun.
  • reedmilfamreedmilfam Member Posts: 2,808
    @Tanthalas - I have to look at my players handbook again. I remember them as light armor, but I'm getting old and senile and have a TEFLON (TM) memory...
  • mlnevesemlnevese Member, Moderator Posts: 10,214
    edited November 2012
    @reedmilfam They didn't have any limitations. We had a player in our table who would always play a ranger in fullplate. No don't ask me why he just didn't create a plain fighter.
  • CaptRoryCaptRory Member Posts: 1,660
    If you really wanted a fighter with rogue skills and didn't care about the backstabbing, Swashbuckler is great. Or maybe playing a mage where you don't want to risk them for a small backstab multiplier and just want them to be able to thump heads if necessary.
  • QuartzQuartz Member Posts: 3,853
    Awong isn't disputing the kit's usefulness. Awong is simply saying that no Thief kit completely replaces the default kit, there are always advantages and disadvantages. I would say Fighter is the same way.

    Awong says this in contrast to, say, the Ranger kits. Who is seriously going to take a default Ranger when you can be a Stalker or Archer?
  • Awong124Awong124 Member Posts: 2,643
    I think all the kits were supposedly designed that way, such that there are big enough drawbacks that still make the pure class desirable in some situations. But the drawbacks on some kits aren't really that bad, and makes the pure class kind of irrelevant.
  • CaptRoryCaptRory Member Posts: 1,660
    I'll agree with that. There are roleplay reasons or maybe just the versatility in some cases. But some kits just waaaay overshadow the base class. Like, any of the paladin kits are better than the default one.
  • Awong124Awong124 Member Posts: 2,643
    Or Cleric kits, which have no downside whatsoever.
  • CaptRoryCaptRory Member Posts: 1,660
    Agreed, but the upsides aren't earth-shattering. They're more for flavoring I think
Sign In or Register to comment.

2024 Overhaul Games, a division of Beamdog. © 2024 Hasbro, Inc. All Rights Reserved. Baldur's Gate, Dungeons & Dragons, D&D, Forgotten Realms, Baldur's Gate, Wizards of the Coast and their logos are trademarks of Wizards of the Coast LLC in the U.S.A. and other countries, and are used with permission. Hasbro and its logo are trademarks of Hasbro, Inc. and are used with permission. © 1998 BioWare Corp. All Rights Reserved. BioWare, the BioWare Infinity Engine and the BioWare logo are trademarks of Bioware Corp. Black Isle Studios and the Black Isle Studios logo are trademarks of Interplay Entertainment Corp. Atari and the Atari logo are trademarks owned by Atari Interactive, Inc. All other trademarks are the property of their respective owners.