Ranger or Fighter?

[Stilgar]

Why choose a ranger over fighter??

[King Leoric]

for stelth (can be very good, since in BG1, you can hide in shadows and then equip full plate, and still be stealthy for some time)

Besides, you also get some charm animal

[MrMuscleHead]

Don't forget the racial enemy.

For quality entertainment, let Minsc go Berserk in the Gnoll Fortress.

Mmmm. Gnoll puree.

[sigurd]

In BG1 i cant see any good reason to be ranger, other than roleplay. Fighters get leveled up faster, which gives more HP, and get a higher weapon skill. Rangers get stealth and, very very late, a spell that wont do any difference.
Oh, lets not forget charm animal, which im still thinking if it is ever usefull. It might be fun, but there arent any tough animals in BG1, except in the very beginning

[Aegis]

I think fighter is a better choice for new players. But, the Ranger is a nice class to play just for variety.

[Sailor Saturn]

I went through BG with a Ranger, but I didn't really see how this would be of any advantage over a Fighter. Sure, it was fun to turn a wolf against its pack; but there was no real benifit from it.

[HighWatcher Zubie]

Originally posted by Sailor Saturn:
<STRONG>Sure, it was fun to turn a wolf against its pack; but there was no real benifit from it.</STRONG>

Try charming the bear in the little blue monster (sorry for the lack of precision ) village and then watch it tear trhough her worshippers. Fun.

[MrMuscleHead]

Originally posted by HighWatcher Zubie:
<STRONG>Try charming the bear in the little blue monster (sorry for the lack of precision ) village and then watch it tear trhough her worshippers. Fun.</STRONG>

I think that was a Xvart villiage. A little west of the Nashel mines. A really fun battle!

[Fnord]

I would tend to agree. Without dual weapon wielding or tracking, rangers just don't carry the same appeal that they do in the PnP game.

That said, I did think it was kind of fun to charm the cats inside the storage room that Reevor sends you so bravely into. Sadly, these pathetic felines are capable only of knocking the mice out, leaving you to mop up anyhow.

[Mirk]

I like rangers, if just for the sake of not bing "tempted" to put more than ** proficiencies into a weapon.

Also, stealth is extreamly useful in mage-heavy areas (such as ice island) - not wearing the plate at all, you can sort of "backstab" - close in, get the first attack off and you are at toe to toe with a mage, which somewhat limits his advantages.

If you have a thief too, you double your effectiveness versus asingle mage.

[rehumphries]

i'm using a half-elf ranger and i'm almost done with the game. i can cast 2 cure light wounds, 2 charm animal, call on holy might, and something else that i can't remeber. my ranger is definately more powerful than any of my fighter. more HP and everything.

[EPKJ]

I prefer Rangers because I think toward BG2, in which I will get all those great specials. Remember that increasing weapon proficiencies beyond 2 doesn't have the same effect it does in pnp D&D, so two slots is good enough. In BG2, you will get Druidic spells and free Dual Weapon specialization.

[Stilgar]

Digging up old treads are whe?
That's true, in BG2 rangers are better as in bg1.
But 5*proficience is pretty handy if you know what weapon you want to use.
My kensai using staffs with 5star profienci and 2in 2handed weapons is almost unbeatable.

Originally posted by EPKJ
I prefer Rangers because I think toward BG2, in which I will get all those great special. Remember that increasing weapon proficiencies beyond 2 doesn't have the same effect it does in pnp D&D, so two slots is good enough. In BG2, you will get Druidic spells and free Dual Weapon specialization.

[The Z]

Though my pure fighter did kick some serious 'arse in BG1, I prefered the ranger and his stealth, not because he was more powerful but because of the different strategies that were open to me. Sure, I could run in and bash everything, but as a ranger I could hide in shadows at near 100% by the middle stages of the game. Not only did this free up my thief to put points into lockpicking/find traps/etc., but it gave me a scout who could actually hurt something, and one that found traps. Plus, he could pick out a place for a mage to unleash an area of effect spell, use the necklace of missiles, or use potions of explosions.

[Impaler987]

In BG1, rangers and fighters owned the game. Fighters because they could fight really well (duh), and rangers, especially those with 18 or 19 in dex. could hide, scout the territory, and provide an excellent setup against an enemy (often a pincer attack). But I'd say overall, the fighter was the best in BG1 because at the early levels you play BG1 at Grandmastery is a big deal (and the fact that it is a lot more powerful in BG1 in itself helps the fighter, too).

In BG2, however, rangers are, without any doubt in my mind, the better class. BG2's levels are around the point where the ranger (and also the paladin) starts to "come of age." They start getting their spells (some of which are useful, contrary to what some say), and a ranger really starts to take off as far as stealth abilities go, making them deadlier than ever. The ranger's abilities mature to such great extents around the teens (in levels) that the lack of Grandmastery (which, haha, is much weaker in BG2) is a total moot point. And I didn't even mention two awesome kits the ranger can take. Archers, who possess greatly enhanced missile weapons ability, can stealth up and rain arrows from the other side of an enemy party and obliterate them, often before the tanks can even roll in; called shot rocks, too. Stalkers (my favorite) are extremely versatile; they're still good at missile weapons (though not like an Archer), they hide even better than a normal Ranger or Archer, they can backstab (yes, like a thief) for disgusting damage (even only at 4x it's nasty), and they can Haste the party, leaving the mage of the party with some free level 3 slots to play with.