Skip to content

Paladin / Ranger VS Fighter

FavreFavre Member Posts: 33
Hey guys,

Just wondering. Why would you bother playing a paladin or a ranger when a fighter does exactly the same thing but better? I mean : less stats restriction and more damage output through weapon specialization.

So my point is, if you want a real holy fighter, do a fighter dualed cleric. More damage and more spells.

The only reason i see somebody playing a ranger is for the archer kit. Otherwise i don't see the point.

What you guys think about that?

Round 1......fight!!
«1

Comments

  • CheesebellyCheesebelly Member Posts: 1,727
    edited July 2012
    Kits. Paladin kits, especially inquisitor, can easily solo the entire game. A fighter will have more difficulties.

    Rangers are a bit different - two points in dual wielding for free is neat. Even more so if you go for a ranger/cleric multi-class. You get both cleric AND druid spells (and Iron Skin + Holy Power + Draw Upon Holy Might + Righteous Magic + dual wielding items of your choice... beats all living things)

    Single-class wise, I agree that fighters have some advantages in direct combat (keeping in mind also that the paladins get unique weapons only for them, but that's not the point). A berserker can easily fight off a ranger in 1-on-1. Kensai single class is tricky though. On the other hand, Kensai dual (mage, cleric, thief, druid) is very powerful.


    Edit : in other words : depends on the context, items and situations. They are all good :)
  • SchneidendSchneidend Member Posts: 3,190
    Paladins, at least, have better saving throws. And, a Paladin with a two-handed sword isn't going to hit much less hard than a Fighter with a two-handed sword. The difference is, what, 3 damage? Paladins also have some really awesome kits.
  • DougPiranhaDougPiranha Member Posts: 50
    Favre said:

    Why would you bother playing a paladin or a ranger when a fighter does exactly the same thing but better?

    Fighters are dumb.
    MachineOfLightLRECQuartz
  • ZafiroZafiro Member Posts: 436
    edited July 2012

    Even more so if you go for a ranger/cleric multi-class. You get both cleric AND druid spells (and Iron Skin + Holy Power + Draw Upon Holy Might + Righteous Magic + dual wielding items of your choice... beats all living things)

    I do wonder is that's valid for BG:EE, probably somebody asked it allready and got an answer, but I was lazy to find out. Do share if you know.

  • TanthalasTanthalas Member Posts: 6,738
    edited July 2012
    The Paladin kits offer some great abilities that make them comparable to Fighters.

    Rangers though, aside from the Archer, I agree that they pale in comparison to better Fighter kits (or even the plain Fighter).
  • SirBuliwyfSirBuliwyf Member Posts: 137
    Game mechanics aside which more than make up the differences, there's one other reason some value, some don't. Roleplay? Kind of central to a Role Play Game. (RPG).
    MachineOfLightsuchossTheSkrin
  • wissenschaftwissenschaft Member Posts: 229
    edited July 2012
    Stalker, I can backstab with a fighter's THACO at higher levels and still use a composite bow which is a fantastic weapon to have in BG1. It makes low level fights so much easier when you can consistently do 10+ damage right from lvl 1 at a safe distance.

    In BG2 I can switch to dual weild backstabbing with STR 19 for massive damage. Lets just say I have no fear of mages.
  • elminsterelminster Member, Developer Posts: 16,315
    edited July 2012
    @Favre Well for one thing a fighter -> cleric dual classed would not get any warrior Hla's, if I'm not mistaken. So could be a disadvantage to say a paladin.
  • FrozenDervishFrozenDervish Member Posts: 295
    Single clads fighters with the exception of berserker pale in comparison to rangers and paladins. Both paladins and rangers get everything a fighter can with the exception of grandmastery but gain access to druid and cleric spells, anti undead or stealth.

    Now if you dual or multi class it removes paladins from the equation in terms if power but a ranger/cleric gains access to druid spells and cleric spells which can put them on par with a fighter/mage and above fighter/cleric and fighter/druid.

    Now after that you can do kits where you can get stalker/cleric for fighter/cleric/thief action, or archer/cleric/druid for a ranged kensai/cleric/druid.

    I include druid spells in this as that was what was shipped with the game originally and since this is using the BG2 engine it is fair to include this.

    So in essence fighter only gets fighter/mage, berserk if berserker, grandmastery, and fighter/thief traps, trap detection, and pick pocket.

    So unless you are playing a fighter/mage ranger will beat out the fighter in most cases.
  • WinthalWinthal Member Posts: 366
    Because it's not all about the stats?
    SirBuliwyfoldsch00lLREC
  • TanthalasTanthalas Member Posts: 6,738


    Now after that you can do kits where you can get stalker/cleric for fighter/cleric/thief action, or archer/cleric/druid for a ranged kensai/cleric/druid.

    I think several of these multi-classes (and dual-classes?) aren't actually possible in BG.
  • MillardkillmooreMillardkillmoore Member Posts: 150
    Inquisitor+Carsomyr=Mopping the floor with anything in the game. Even High-level mages in SoA and ToB are pitifully easy once you've used your supercharged dispel magic ability on them. Getting Carsomyr to +6 at that point is overkill, but so very satisfying.
    SirBuliwyflansounetFenghoang
  • FrozenDervishFrozenDervish Member Posts: 295
    Tanthalas said:



    I think several of these multi-classes (and dual-classes?) aren't actually possible in BG.

    They are with the BG2 engine. Ranger would be able to dual or multi with cleric. And the others are comparisons to the fighters not actual class combinations. Since the archer is essentially a ranged kensai and the stalker is quite close to a ranger/thief which is similar to how a bard could be considered a mage/thief multi, but as a single class.
  • CorvinoCorvino Member Posts: 2,269
    Some of the lower-level cleric spells turn out to be crazily useful. Armor of Faith + Draw upon holy might + random other goodies can make a higher level Ranger/Paladin compete nicely with a similar level fighter with a bit more versatility.

    Plus Inquisitor and Cavalier are very small tradeoffs for very large benefits.
  • byrne20byrne20 Member Posts: 503
    Ranger all the way :)
  • etaglocetagloc Member Posts: 349
    one word.. roleplaying...how cares about powerplaying...you gona beat the game anyway
    SirBuliwyfWinthal
  • kraedkraed Member Posts: 60
    edited July 2012
    There's a phrase in D&D: "linear fighters, quadratic wizards" (or variations of this). The idea being that the D&D universe is massively skewed towards magical power than physical power. As fighters progress in a fairly standard straight line (albeit a steeper line than the other classes) the magical characters gain the ability to completely and utterly shutdown fighters with a single word pretty much from level 2 onwards.

    The idea of a ranger or a paladin being better than a fighter is simply because they have more of a magical arsenal at their disposal than a fighter. Certain paladin kits for example can tear their way through enemies by dispelling magic, and have immunity to fear. They also have much, much better gear in the BG games. Generally they also have better saving throws as well, particularly as fighters usually skimp on the stats that increase the will saves (arguably the most important ones). A simple fear spell takes a fighter out of the fight for the entire fight, whereas a paladin can both resist it and remove it from their allies.

    A dual fighter/cleric may look more powerful on paper, but they actually fill a completely different role to the Paladin. They are still just clerics, and as clerics you want them hurling spells to disable and heal, not fighting on the front lines in danger of disruption or death. The paladin distracts and protects whilst the caster casts - and a Paladin (with kits especially) does this role much better than the cleric. As a Lawful Good in BG1 you will also get free access to Draw Upon Holy Might which benefits the Pally a lot more than it does the cleric (who can probably already cast it well enough)

    A ranger.. well they have that extra dual wield spec but it's really only an early game advantage. As the fighter grows they can outdo any possible specialisation that a ranger can. The extra abilities of the ranger are not so useful in a combat heavy game such as BG (their uses are more noticeable in pen and paper though). The druidic spell casting is a nice flavour, but druid spells in general are not as useful as cleric spells and mostly the paladin is better than the ranger. The archer is of course a notably exception, as there are some extremely powerful bows available quite readily. The duelling to cleric to get access to both druid and cleric spells with full spell progression is so obviously not an intended feature I don't even know why people argue it.

    The kits of the fighter are all designed to increase their damage output but -massively- reduce their survivability. A fighters job is to soak up the damage and protect the ranged users and casters, so these kits are of a rather questionable use as is. The kensai is a notable exception simply because it's extremely powerful, and most people cheese the restrictions by dualling with thief for use any item, but you can't do that in BG1. Even with the insane damage output the kensai is still instantly reduced to nothing by a single spell that they probably wont resist, and without the gear they are less likely to have equipped magical protection to negate some of the more common effects.

    The areas where fighters truly shine are in fights against other physical combatants that have no access to magical abilities, however these fights are generally not very tough. Like the fighter themself a few carefully placed spells instantly win these encounters.

    And in regards to roleplay: BG1 doesn't really have much opportunity to roleplay beyond what is in your head. It's okay to say you want to roleplay characters but keep in mind that other people may want to play the game for the battles, which is virtually the whole game. Personally I feel like total cheese when playing a Kensai/Thief instead of a Swashbuckler, for example, so I guess there's a little roleplay in not wanting to feel like a min/maxer.
    mch202SirBuliwyfsuchossBrude
  • SchneidendSchneidend Member Posts: 3,190
    etagloc said:

    one word.. roleplaying...how cares about powerplaying...you gona beat the game anyway

    Admirable, but naive.

    Powergaming is the difference between surviving the odd 4 bandits with bows random encounter, and utter desolation.
  • kraedkraed Member Posts: 60
    It simply isn't Schneidend, because the game is not very difficult. If the game was mecilessly punishing in difficulty yes, but it is not. Any combination of characters can coast through the game without too much sweat or blood drawn. Powergaming in BG is simply the difference between getting to the end of the game and being challenged along the way, or not being challenged at all.
  • MajocaMajoca Member Posts: 263
    I have always seen fighters to soak up damage or be the fodder for those spells kraed talked about, they are the wall the seperates the payload, mages and other magic users. In neverwinter nights its a different ball game, you get fea ts and abilities which allows fighters and other melee based character to excell at what they do, but in baldurs gate I see fighters as just meat shield unless dualed where there fighting abilities can benefit back stabbing or the use of better weapons, like fighter mage, you can then use long bows. However Kraed is right about the game being more about magic, I always lean towards the mage as they become gods among men at later levels though I can never play as a cleric they are vital to surviving. Theif is also incredibley handy, but nothing beats the arsenal a mage carries with them.
  • kraedkraed Member Posts: 60
    There's a reason half the playable cast in BG2 decided to dual into mage that's for sure. It's certainly hard to roleplay when your preprogrammed party is a bunch of powergamers :p
  • KhyronKhyron Member Posts: 626
    I for one love my Paladins. Why? Because of all the neat tricks they've got up their sleeves of course.

    All in all, I am a pretty lazy player. The less i press pause, and the less i doodle about in the spell casting abilities and such (usually have all my casters scripted and let them go about their business), the happier I am.

    If you look at Bg2/ToB, you'll realize that you run into more vampires than you can shake a wooden stake at. If you send in a barebones fighter, he'll get lvl-drained and die within a few rounds.. Where as an Undead Hunter will cut them to shreds with ease. The vampires are very squishy indeed, if you negate their lvl draining.

    As mentioned earlier in the thread, an Inquisitor will mop the floor with nearly any mage what so ever, where a fighter could be feared or otherwise put out of action with relatively weak spells that need a will save.

    Then there's my favorite, the Cavalier. Resist dragon knockbacks, immune to fear, extra damage and hit rolls towards demons and dragons (the ones you actually need a little more "oomph" in your blows to kill) and naturally heightened resistances to fire and acid, which in my oppinion are among the most dangerous elements used in different magic spells.

    Yes, Pallies may lvl slower than a fighter and they don't get as many pips in the proficiences, but to be honest, that stuff doesn't even compare to the benefits of having the Paladin bonuses.
    Unless of course you exclusively fight goblins, orcs and other fighter humanoids, where you just need to slice and dice. Mages, clerics, dragons, vampires, demons, mindflayers and all other things magical however, will eat your fighter alive.

    Rangers however, have proven to be more alike slinkies than anything. They're quite useless, but it's fun to watch one stumble down the stairs. (Except for the Archer.. which is just too much work, keeping track of magic arrows and bla bla bla.. also, they're sort of useless when mages start casting Protection from Ranged attacks or whatever the hell that silly spell is called, which in my oppinion is just way too overpowered. Sort of makes ranged characters completely and utterly useless in the later stages..)

    If you're all about minmaxing however, I guess no melee character is more fun than a fighter->cleric with maxed out proficiency for Crom Faer (spelling?) and a shield, toss up that Wall of Blades spell or whatever and just let an aggressive script maul every living thing in sight.

    Or a fighter/mage, wear robe of vecna, cast timestop, cast horrid wilting, use whirwind and hit Melissan 15 times with Angurvadal and make her splat into a million pieces once TS ends.. but that's just stupid and completely and utterly destroys the game and any challenge it could ever muster.

    The reason this problem even occurs, is simply because we as players have shown an ingenuity and an honest interest in making the most ridiculously overpowered characters the game mechanics can support.. and it just wasn't ever ment to be that way, from a developers point of view.

    To end a long rant, I'd just like to add that Baldur's Gate series is very well cemented in the lore of Faerun and has an immense story arc which the world has not seen any equal of in any other computer game. This encourages me to make a character that seems likely to happen, something that can be intervowen in the story and have a probable reason for even existing. Yes, we play as one of the children of the lord of murder, and in ToB we're being shown some pretty insane powers, but we're still very much supposed to be the underdog, the one who leans on his trusty companions and is hustled from one danger to the other. And while I have experimented with the type of builds I mentioned earlier, I always find they completely and utterly ruin the games story and balance for me.. but that's just my two cents and I'm sorry for the long rant that went a fair bit off topic..

    In conclusion; single classed fighters suck at everything but brandishing swords in the general direction of goblins.. and are immensily boring and linear to play, as the one trick pony they are.
    SirBuliwyfBrude
  • SchneidendSchneidend Member Posts: 3,190
    kraed said:

    It simply isn't Schneidend, because the game is not very difficult. If the game was mecilessly punishing in difficulty yes, but it is not. Any combination of characters can coast through the game without too much sweat or blood drawn. Powergaming in BG is simply the difference between getting to the end of the game and being challenged along the way, or not being challenged at all.

    That depends on your definition of sweat or blood drawn. If an ahnkeg one-shots you with its breath weapon because you wanted to play a "sickly" Fighter with a pitiful Constitution. You're certainly not going to survive a barrage of darts from The Fastest Dart In The West playing as a solo single-class Bard unless you outlevel/outgear he and his toadie significantly. And, unless you've memorized most of the game or are using a walkthrough, you're not going to be able to simply avoid these sorts of things. Then, luck is always a factor, the four bandit archers + four dogs random encounter could happen as early as the first trip to Candlekeep.
    Khyron said:



    In conclusion; single classed fighters suck at everything but brandishing swords in the general direction of goblins.. and are immensily boring and linear to play, as the one trick pony they are.

    I happen to like playing a character who is really awesome at brandishing swords and little else. Of course, I usually play Berserker, which is immune to just about everything you've described.
  • KhyronKhyron Member Posts: 626
    Immune for as long as you can keep berserk going, yes. But there's a time limitation on that.. a light that burns twice as bright, burns only for half as long.

    *shrug*
  • FrozenDervishFrozenDervish Member Posts: 295
    Most fights with that need berserk should be long over before it wears off.
  • KhyronKhyron Member Posts: 626
    Again... *shrug*. I'm sure berserkers have their uses, just like most other classes. I guess the thing that really bothers me with them, is the fact that their kit benefit is both time and x times/day limited, where as the pallies have theirs as passive abilities.. Then comes the remove fear, dispelling, cleric spells and so on and so forth.

    Put in other words, their passive abilities caters very nicely to my incredibly lazy style of playing. If there's two less buttons to click, I'll buy it!
  • MilesBeyondMilesBeyond Member Posts: 324
    Paladins and Rangers are both slightly more versatile versions of Fighters. They have the ability to hold their own on the front lines while being able to draw from a pool of special abilities. Sure, having a front-line warrior who can Stealth isn't too useful, but as noted some spells like Armor of Faith and especially Draw Upon Holy Might (sadly Paladin only, IIRC) are a great boost.

    And if the bonuses aren't huge, than neither are the tradeoffs. After all, who would question Minsc's prowess as a warrior? And even sans Carsomyr, Keldorn can still bring the pain.

    I like to think of them as a Fighter/Priest that's 90% Fighter, 10% Priest.


    I've also found that Warriors are quite capable of holding their own at higher levels, especially if they're the diminutive races, who seem to get saving throw bonuses out the wazoo, and that's what'll really help you against casters. Tons of hitpoints, low AC and good chances of making your saving throws leaves characters who can easily bring down AI mages (though really, with the AI being what it is, that's not that much of an accomplishment...)

    Still not as powerful as the Shapechange/Time Stop combo, but you know, what is?
  • kraedkraed Member Posts: 60
    @Schneidend

    None of your examples of powergaming matter really because you're comparing min/maxing perfection with people playing the most bafflingly useless builds possible. There's simply no inbetween in your logic. In BG it isn't "powergame or suck" it's "powergame or do perfectly fine anyway". This isn't a hard game at all.

    Seriously. A low cons fighter losing to a bard because the bard throws darts whilst the fighter... just sits there? What about a low cons fighter throwing the same darts back. He will have better armour and still better hp because of higher base rolls, even with lower cons. At worst maybe a -little- less if you are really hurting for it. He'll have better proficiency with the weapons and he'll have a better THACO. The bard flat out loses this fight hands down without spellcasting, but a fighter loses every fight to anything that spellcasts anyway so that's not a fair comparison for powergaming anyway.

    Just because you're playing an 18/18/18/18/18/3 character or w/e that doesn't mean your average gamer is going to attempt to struggle through with a 10/6/3/9/11/15 fighter or something

    Also regarding the berserker: It's certainly a very, very good tank for 60 seconds (arguably unrivalled, save for an epic level spell flinger). However after 60 seconds its more useless than a base kitless fighter, thanks to being winded. I prefer characters that don't get steep penalties after a minute of fighting myself, but it definitely depends on your playstyle. I personally don't like having to rest lots and lots, since I come from a pnp backround where repeated resting is almost always rejected by the DM. Though this doesn't change that the equipment for a fighter still isn't as good as that for a paladin. The berserker also still lacks the means to fight back against magically protected enemies - he can withstand the attacks but not pierce the spell protections. If your melee tank can break those protections with dispel or w/e then your magic users get to kill them a turn or 3 earlier.
  • FrozenDervishFrozenDervish Member Posts: 295
    To be fair on the no resting part in PnP you will very rarely fight much of anything as compared to BG so 1 or 2 rages would be all that would in reality be needed. Then there is also the point in most fantasy fighters will mostly fight other fighters to keep them off your own wizard while he takes down the opposing wizard. So in essence a fighter should in theory never have to actually worry about the enemy wizard unleas his own wizard is defeated, and if he is defeated the enemy wizard should be near exhausted and low on spells/defenses that to a fighter should be meaningless.
  • SchneidendSchneidend Member Posts: 3,190
    kraed said:

    @Schneidend

    Seriously. A low cons fighter losing to a bard because the bard throws darts whilst the fighter... just sits there? What about a low cons fighter throwing the same darts back. He will have better armour and still better hp because of higher base rolls, even with lower cons. At worst maybe a -little- less if you are really hurting for it. He'll have better proficiency with the weapons and he'll have a better THACO. The bard flat out loses this fight hands down without spellcasting, but a fighter loses every fight to anything that spellcasts anyway so that's not a fair comparison for powergaming anyway.

    I didn't ever mention Fighters losing to Bards. There's literally an NPC whose nickname is The Fastest Dart In The West. I can never remember his given name, only that he's a really high-level Fighter that throws a lot of darts really fast, and his friend fights anybody who gets too close with a halberd. The first time I encountered him, he killed a couple party members while they were on their way to him, and those that made it into melee range simply weren't hitting him. If you don't min-max and happen through that area early on, the same thing will happen, and there's tons of stuff like that throughout the game. Maybe it's not hard to us veterans, but it's not like we started off rampaging through the forest, slaughtering grizzly bears by the truck load minutes after Gorion's death. BG is a hard game due to the combination of low level characters, the potential for bad luck, and free roam. Period.
    Zeckul
Sign In or Register to comment.