Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

Categories

Axis & Allies 1942 Online is now available in Early Access! Buy it on Steam. The FAQ is available.
Attention, new and old users! Please read the new rules of conduct for the forums, and we hope you enjoy your stay!

Paladin / Ranger VS Fighter

2»

Comments

  • JolanthusJolanthus Member Posts: 292
    Rangers also get favoured enemy. Very useful if you choose the right ones.

  • SchneidendSchneidend Member Posts: 3,190
    Oooh, I forgot about Favored Enemy. You mostly fight humans, elves, and dwarves, though, and this is sadly not 3rd Edition with Evil Rangers selecting their own race as a favored enemy.

  • JolanthusJolanthus Member Posts: 292
    That's why I take spiders and undead. XP for spiders is way underrated for their power.

  • SchneidendSchneidend Member Posts: 3,190
    Aha! True. The game has craptons of spiders, and sword spiders are worth like 1800 xp a piece!

  • FavreFavre Member Posts: 33
    I've been reading all the arguments and the point listed here. I think the key points are invalid.

    1. You speak about paladin and rangers having better saving throws but if i go on the class progression chart, fighters and paladin/rangers have the very same saving throws

    2. Fighters are the tanks and not damage dealer. From this point of view, so are the paladin and the ranger. They can both equip the same equipment.

    4. Paladin are good whit Carsomyr +5? We are talking about Bg1 and a weapon. There's plenty of awesome two handed beside Carsomyr a Fighter can wield. So that makes the paladin viable only when he gets the Holy avenger?

    5. Let's face it. You can get better buffs whit a fighter/cleric and the level 7 (and TOB) spells. Stopping the progression at level 4 is pretty weak.


    What i'm trying to say is: Fighters are better than paladin and rangers when they dual class to a cleric or thief.

    The only exception i see is a ranger dual class cleric who can be on par or even better.

  • FrozenDervishFrozenDervish Member Posts: 295
    Well the initial post is about the single classes and paladin/ranger beat out a base class fighter exponentially with the exception of berserker on a couple of fights due to the berserkers wrong immunities.

    Fighters are better dualed or multi but you lose out on a lot more exp as a multi and for duals you have to lvl a 2nd class to the same level which can take a while if at all with a full party.

    And in BG2 even though fighter/2nd class takes off a ranger and paladin will still be ahead in levels and power for a longer time than a multi fighter and gain full hp dice as compared to 1/2 a multi class gets. A dual fighter will lose access to fighter HLA as well as lose access to their first class if they don't dual early negating additional thac0 and extra APR.

    And finally we get into the initial base stats rangers and pallies do not need 17 in the required stats for dualling nor are the multi class stat penalties as harsh for minimums.

    So we get duals and multis more powerful at the end of SoA or mid ToB depending on how much exp you've gotten and the size of your party.

  • FavreFavre Member Posts: 33
    I just hope there will be a hardcore mode whit more and tougher ennemies so we can go munchkin full throttle

  • FavreFavre Member Posts: 33
    The thing i hated whit bg1 is the lack of complicated fights. We need more traps. Better AI, etc...

  • suchosssuchoss Member Posts: 16
    You are talking about Fighter, Paladin, but what about Monk? He is almost invulnerable to magic and nearly needs no equipment..

  • FrozenDervishFrozenDervish Member Posts: 295
    Monk is very vulnerable in BG until you get around level 15 due to their AC being at kensei level while their damage being at bard level all the while having nearly no spell resist.

  • raywindraywind Member Posts: 289
    edited July 2012
    well they all are nice in some ways but the best weapon in bg1 is dagger of venom and evertone can wield it.. i soloed the game with paladin with it and ranger also.

  • JolanthusJolanthus Member Posts: 292
    A ranger in light armour with a bow can sneak ahead and pick off most enemies before they even know they have an arrow sticking out of their chest. Playing icewind dale I had a ranger clear a room full of trolls using a bow flaming arrows and boots of speed without being touched.

  • SchneidendSchneidend Member Posts: 3,190
    Favre said:

    I've been reading all the arguments and the point listed here. I think the key points are invalid.

    1. You speak about paladin and rangers having better saving throws but if i go on the class progression chart, fighters and paladin/rangers have the very same saving throws

    Paladins have an innate +2 bonus to saving throws. That's what everybody is referring to when they talk about Paladin saving throws.

  • kraedkraed Member Posts: 60
    Favre said:

    I've been reading all the arguments and the point listed here. I think the key points are invalid.

    1. You speak about paladin and rangers having better saving throws but if i go on the class progression chart, fighters and paladin/rangers have the very same saving throws

    2. Fighters are the tanks and not damage dealer. From this point of view, so are the paladin and the ranger. They can both equip the same equipment.

    4. Paladin are good whit Carsomyr +5? We are talking about Bg1 and a weapon. There's plenty of awesome two handed beside Carsomyr a Fighter can wield. So that makes the paladin viable only when he gets the Holy avenger?

    5. Let's face it. You can get better buffs whit a fighter/cleric and the level 7 (and TOB) spells. Stopping the progression at level 4 is pretty weak.


    What i'm trying to say is: Fighters are better than paladin and rangers when they dual class to a cleric or thief.

    The only exception i see is a ranger dual class cleric who can be on par or even better.

    1. Paladins get a flat bonus to their saving throws on creation. I believe it's +2 to all.

    2. Agreed, hence why thefighter kits suck so hard. Kensai and wizard slayer make you horrendously bad at tanking, whereas the paladin kits greatly enhance your ability to hold off again the trickiest enemies that you actually need to tank against. Berserker was the exception but it's a limited use tanking ability that lasts 60 seconds and then makes you very vulnerable, but for those 60 seconds you're almost immune to status effects.

    4. There's more Paladin only equip than just carsomyr, but even if you purely look at carsomyr it still makes them miles better than the fighter. The other thing is you can get Carsomyr within an hour of leaving Irenicus' dungeon if you know where to go, and then you're set for a weapon for the entire game. If you're purely looking at BG1 I would agree equipment is not so much an issue. BG1 is very much a low magic world, whereas BG2 is a high magic world. They play very differently that's for sure. I don't think any one class has much of an equipment bonus over another in BG1.

    5. Your argument falls kind of flat here because you were arguing solely for BG1, now you're arguing for TOB? The point was that if you've dualled/multi classed into cleric your arsenal is better suited to solely spellcasting, not being a different version of the Pally. If you already have a cleric having an extra cleric isn't as useful as having someone that can tank better. Spell buffs are really great but they can also be stripped down fairly easily, and you don't want to waste buffing spells on every encounter.

    Majoca
  • RyknRykn Member Posts: 30
    Are we talking about in just BG 1 or BG 2? I'm unsure about the former but in the latter... my favorite class is Stalker. I dual wield Celestial fury with a choice dagger (usually start out with the pixie prick and then upgrade to dagger of the star) and end up suited up with Studded armor of thorns and Montolio's cloak by end game. By then we just have to find some similar armed fighters and paladins and have them duke it out.

    hmmm kits are fair but dual or multi classing is a no no. We want to determine the best of the classes in a pure form I would think. I don't think fighter would win against either the Paladin or Ranger. Though the Paladin Vs. Ranger would be a much closer fight. I shall go and experiment but I'm kinda leaning toward Mr.Lawful stupid. I dunno.

  • CorvinoCorvino Member Posts: 2,269
    Fighters definitely have their uses, and may have an edge in BG1 due to faster level progression. They're also very useful for dualling to mages, thieves or clerics with the only real downside being downtime.

    However BG2 and TOB are all about versatility. With the ability to cast low-level spells & gain multiple special abilities/immunities (as well as access all the same HLAs as fighters + 1 or 2 others) Paladins and Rangers do become very strong indeed. Paladins can get up to level 4 priest spells giving them access to death ward, negative plane protection, free action, defensive harmony and more. Apart from grandmastery (which was nerfed in the BG2 engine anyway) they have all the advantages of a fighter in addition to spellcasting, special abilities and immunites.

  • SirBuliwyfSirBuliwyf Member Posts: 117
    @Khyron such an awesome post I'm amazed it does not have more likes!

  • FavreFavre Member Posts: 33
    Mwhahaha i created quite a good thread eh? :P

  • AurenRavidelAurenRavidel Member Posts: 139
    Winthal said:

    Because it's not all about the stats?

    Even if it was, Paladins and Rangers easily roll higher stats than the typical fighter, what with their high minimum requirements. They also have better kits.

    The paladin with the cavalier kit wielding a holy avenger > most fighter melee builds, at least in versatility (magic resistance, major bonuses against tough enemies like demons and dragons)

    A ranger with the archer kit > most fighter ranged builds

  • SamielSamiel Member Posts: 156
    @Favre you did create a good thread! I'm not sure I'm overly qualified to answer this, as when I get the itch to play a warrior class I pretty much always pick Paladins. I can say I have never had any trouble with one, it's a tough question to answer as everything does depend on general party composition.

    The beauty of D&D is working out that perfect team, so deficiencies that one class possesses can be shored up by the strengths of another. In that regard I think it is very difficut to subjectively ascertain which is the best, unless you are talking about solo play.

    There are also some other good points about kit, and stats. Baldur's Gate in essence cheats, and if you want to play a Ranger/Paladin you get the minimum prerequisite stat. If we were to level the playing field and you had Ranger/Paladin vs a Fighter with similar stats I think the gap would close somewhat.

  • beerflavourbeerflavour Member Posts: 111
    edited August 2012

    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.
    In BG1 and BG2 (as well as IWD) the only difference between a party of "power gamer builds" and a party of "flower sniffer builds" is that the latter might have to rest a few times more often and can't carry that much junk (loot) along. You are even able to beat these games with characters whose ability scores add up to only 40-60pts. Class setup, tactics, meta-gaming and exploiting stupid AI matter then.

    It can easily be tested by rolling the party the traditional way (with 3 dice).

    Moomintroll
  • VizielViziel Member Posts: 11
    Lol what you saying, ranger is the best class ever, a ranger dual-wield + bow can solo BG1 & 2 easily.

  • JolanthusJolanthus Member Posts: 292
    While I understand that grand mastery is a benefit of being a straight up fighter over a ranger or pally. I've never understood why Pallys and rangers couldn't go that high. Because to me learning how to use multiple weapons competently would be more time consuming than focusing on one. And I hate having to pick a weapon I'll never use. It feels like a waste.

  • ThelsThels Member Posts: 1,319
    Those weapon dips are added on top of the 2nd edition engine, and I assume they added them to give the fighter something that the paladin and the ranger didn't have.

    In 2nd edition itself, the fighter had nothing that the paladin and the ranger didn't have, except that a fighter had an easier time at building a keep and attracting followers, which doesn't work very well in BG.

  • IchigoRXCIchigoRXC Member Posts: 1,001
    I think it would be nice if we could invest 3 points into some weapons or something. You know, a fighter can get grand mastery, but a paladin and ranger could get 3 stars perhaps? I always thought that it was funny having five stars but everyone can get 1 or 2 and then a fighter can have 5, no 3's n 4's.

    Also is it a multiclass fighter who can't get more than 2? perhaps let them have 3 or 4 as well, so show their fighter base but not have grand mastery because they are multiclassed.

  • BoasterBoaster Member Posts: 618
    Favre said:

    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!!

    Actually, with the way BG2 set proficiencies, being a Ranger or a Paladin have more perqs than not.

    Grandmastery was the reason for being a fighter. Getting further than specialization, under the nerfed proficiencies, isn't worth it.

  • MornmagorMornmagor Member Posts: 1,160
    Ok, for single classes, i would pick paladin, or a berserker, but then again, the berserker has just incredibly powerful bonuses during berserk. He is vulnerable afterwards? Well not really, berserk again! lol :p

    Now, if you account dual or multiclassing, then the paladin falls behind. A dual class berserker/cleric is king at levels 15-20, he can deal more damage than a fighter or a paladin even with a one hand weapon. And if he gets crom faeyr? He falls a bit behind though at high levels, because he doesn't have fighter high level abilities.

    The real power in high levels comes from multi fighter cleric, or cleric ranger, they can still about the same damage as a fighter/paladin buffed but especially the cleric/ranger is the best tank period. Iron skins alone covers it. In the end you get all the arsenal of the fighter along with whirlwind etc, and a crapload of spells, buffs or not.

    You can play however you want, you can tank with your dual cleric, damage, anything, and the same goes with the OP question, you can pick whatever, and shine elsewhere.

    An inquisitor will still trivialize some mage fights, where the fighter might have trouble. Of course, berserker -again :p- is able to trivialise some fights in his own way.

    I guess it matter a lot what people you have with you, a functional party allows for more challenges.

    I tend to powergame myself too, from stats to classes, but always towards the aesthetic direction that i prefer. I like fighters and paladins and clerics, i mostly like to play them as knights.

    Now with the blackguard kit things will be interesting as well, can't wait to see what class it belongs to actually, so we can see if we can cheat-er i mean multi or dual class with it :]

Sign In or Register to comment.