Ranger Vs Fighter

[Zyenu]

I have been searching for arguments like this but they seem very dated, still from when the ranger got "fixed". Can you guys please give me your oppinion on wich is better ranger or fighter and explaining why.
Thank you

[D'amarr from Darshiva]

Better with regard to what?

Also, do you really ask about "Ranger vs. Fighter" or about the superior options like "Ranger/Cleric vs. Fighter/Cleric" multi-class or dual-class?
--> https://baldursgate.fandom.com/wiki/Cleric_/_Ranger

[Giblets]

I'm currently just a bog standard Ranger cause i don't know how the duel or multi class.
Kinda pointless using him as a main fighter as you can't really excel in any weapons, but saying that i'm doing just that lol but probs made the game harder for myself.

[Luka]

Ranger starts with the ability to duel wield and has access to useful priest spells. If you specialized them into an archer theyre the best ranged weapon user in the game other than a fighter

Fighters can put full points into weapon specialization which is really good, those extra attacks and speed and damage factors are strong. From what I've heard fighter/mage is overpowered

[wendigo211]

Fighter is better. It levels faster and can put more proficiency points into the weapons it uses. The Berserker class has a ton of immunities from rage and the Kensai is the best ranged combatant in the game. The Dwarven Defender is also a decent kit.

The only + that Ranger has going for it is it can cast Armor of Faith, which stacks with hardiness letting them get 65% damage reduction once they have access to HLAs. Archer is a good kit and, after the Kensai, the sling Archer is the second best ranged combatant in the game. Stalker is also an okay kit, but you're probably better off just playing a Fighter/Thief. You can check out Valygar if you want to play a Stalker.

If you're looking at multi/dual class options, then Fighter is superior except for Ranger/Cleric if you enable a bug that Beamdog fixed that give the Ranger/Cleric access to the Druid and Cleric spell list.

The Ranger has gotten worse in every edition of D&D since first. They're rewriting it (have rewritten it? I haven't kept up) for 5th edition because it's completely useless. From 3rd ed. onwards they should have dumped the Ranger and renamed the Scout, "Ranger" instead.

[Zotliatlicor]

Only Pure Class Fighters can get more than 2 * in any weapon, and that is where their strength lies. Korgan is a good example with 5 stars in axe when you meet him, and once you have a decent Throwing Axe (returning) he is also very good in ranged Combat.

Minsc is a default Ranger, that can use the heaviest armours and starts with 2 * in Two Weapon Fighting (all rangers do). But you are likely to use him as a 2-H sword user for a long time as that is where his weapon skills are (he starts with 2-H ** Mace ** and Longbow **). There are not many useful maces in the early game.

Valgyar is far better with Katanas. Once you have the golden Katana of "beat game" he is devastating in combat. But any pure fighter that chooses katanas will be better if they also invest in Dual Wielding. But that is a lot of points spent. Rangers start the game with 8 *, of which 2 is always in Dual Wield, and Fighters start with 6.

Ranger levels to 34 and get a total of 17 weapon proficiencies (15 + the 2 in Dual Wield). Fighters level to 40 and also get a total of 17 proficiency points, and you choose all of them freely. So the Ranger would likely have 3 in Dual wielding and be 2 star proficient with 7 weapons (14), and a pure class Fighter can be grand master in 3 weapons and have 2 star on anything else, or grand master in two weapons and have 7 points to spare anywhere.

As you can see, if you "know" what weapons you are going to be rolling with, you can get 3 * in Dual Wielding and still make grand master in 2 weaopns classes, and that is pretty strong. Late Korgan with Grand Mastery of Axes and War Hammers is a beast when Dual-Wielding.

If you made a ranger (unkitted - like Minsc) from the start, it would give you a lot of diversity if you chose a few good weapon groups. Example Long Swords ** Flails ** Axe **

You will find very good strong versions of Flails, Axes and Long Swords early in the game, and throughout the entire game. As you grow you can add Katanas, War hammers, Maces, Scimitars or whatever you fancy.

Ranger spells are not very strong, but they are useful, and can be used to great effect. It doesnt hurt to have a front line combatant that can cast Armour of Faith (very good spell), Bless, or the occational Dhoom or Entangle when you need to.

Kitted the Archer is a very very good ranged attacker. The Kensai "might" be better but i find Kensai "pure" have too much drawback. I would choose Archer instead if i wanted a Ranged Combat master.

Personally i think Vanilla Ranger is the best of the ranger classes.

* Stalker is good and fun, but i find the drawbacks are too severe. I like having Full Plate
Mail on my Ranger.

* Archer is good for that time when you want to play a ranged weaopn master, and with a *
in Scimitars he can get a decent APR when Dual Wielding with Belm +2 in the Off hand
later on.

* Beasmaster is a hands down horrible kit. So of course i have a game where i play one,
but i dont reccommend it.

[Zyenu]

Originally posted by wendigo211:

Fighter is better. It levels faster and can put more proficiency points into the weapons it uses. The Berserker class has a ton of immunities from rage and the Kensai is the best ranged combatant in the game. The Dwarven Defender is also a decent kit.

The only + that Ranger has going for it is it can cast Armor of Faith, which stacks with hardiness letting them get 65% damage reduction once they have access to HLAs. Archer is a good kit and, after the Kensai, the sling Archer is the second best ranged combatant in the game. Stalker is also an okay kit, but you're probably better off just playing a Fighter/Thief. You can check out Valygar if you want to play a Stalker.

If you're looking at multi/dual class options, then Fighter is superior except for Ranger/Cleric if you enable a bug that Beamdog fixed that give the Ranger/Cleric access to the Druid and Cleric spell list.

The Ranger has gotten worse in every edition of D&D since first. They're rewriting it (have rewritten it? I haven't kept up) for 5th edition because it's completely useless. From 3rd ed. onwards they should have dumped the Ranger and renamed the Scout, "Ranger" instead.

Sigh....I didn't know, I've always liked the ranger class. I hope that in the upcoming BG3 every class is somewhat balanced

[D'amarr from Darshiva]

Even before the BG series, the Ranger/Cleric combination was among the most powerful and popular choices. Lots of people kept searching for something similar in the later games.

[wendigo211]

Originally posted by Zyenu:

Sigh....I didn't know, I've always liked the ranger class. I hope that in the upcoming BG3 every class is somewhat balanced

From what I've read, Larian may in part be responsible for the Ranger redesign. It looks like they approached WotC with some changes to the class and WotC liked them. Whether that's true or not, BG3 will be using the redesigned Ranger and not the original 5th Ed. one.

[Kyutaru]

Originally posted by Zyenu:

Sigh....I didn't know, I've always liked the ranger class. I hope that in the upcoming BG3 every class is somewhat balanced

It's balanced in the tabletop at least because the Ranger's assets are mostly non-combat ones. He's meant to be the naturalist, part fighter part rogue part druid/mage. He can stealth, he can fight, he can spell cast, he can track and hunt deadly beasts, like a ranger with a favored enemy was supreme. D&D also was not meant to go past lvl 9 for most campaigns, it was even the original retirement level, so the powercreep on fighters and mages really sets in when they expanded the game. Druids had it even worse, being level capped by how many other druids were of the same rank. There can be only one Grand Druid so only one is allowed to be lvl 15.

BG3 is based on 5th edition where the classes are much more balanced compared to AD&D and you get perks to customize them further. That said there are still some classes and class combinations that are just tiers ahead of everything else because with freedom of customization comes min-maxing.

[endrsgm]

I was playing d&d since it was chainmail and came in a tiny box with 3 or 4 little booklets.
the original cap of 9 was for non humans and was to balance their abilities vs humans not having any. I think humans level cap was 15 chainmail.
then level 13 in basic edition and, and then in expert edition dwarves, elves, halfling levels were bumped (to 12, 10, 8) but went to lvl 14 for humans with the companions edition running humans to level 25.

ad&d removed the demi human level caps because every player ever ignored them and hated them. it kept the only non humans as allowed to multi class but only humans allowed to dual class.

the early d&d/ad&d games were nothing like what we have now. they were designed by a bunch of guys playing table top simulations who got fascinated in zooming that in. a bit like sim City creator being interested in the people and out comes the sims. same here with zoomed out battles on a tabletop and getting interested in the figures. lol.

but it was a very very rigid game and totally unforgiving. die and your constitution limited resurrection/raise dead as did how long ago you died vs when spell cast, etc. you were expected to die often and have to start over. most campaigns over by level 10 or so. often lower. because you died in a dungeon too far from any chance to resurrect/raise dead.

but people got attached to their characters which the designers of the game hadn't anticipated because they didn't. the game evolved from a rigid combat simulator to a much more forgiving system where the dice aren't final, there are no caps, and the rules are more or less whatever makes people enjoy the game. not knocking it, just noting this is indeed the games evolution.

i think it was 2nd edition thst completely removed cap and told u how to progress beyond 20 'forever'.

i still have chainmail, d&d basic, d&d expert, ad&d editions 2 books. lost d&d companions and 1st edition ad&d stuff.

[Zyenu]

Originally posted by endrsgm:

I was playing d&d since it was chainmail and came in a tiny box with 3 or 4 little booklets.
the original cap of 9 was for non humans and was to balance their abilities vs humans not having any. I think humans level cap was 15 chainmail.
then level 13 in basic edition and, and then in expert edition dwarves, elves, halfling levels were bumped (to 12, 10, 8) but went to lvl 14 for humans with the companions edition running humans to level 25.

ad&d removed the demi human level caps because every player ever ignored them and hated them. it kept the only non humans as allowed to multi class but only humans allowed to dual class.

the early d&d/ad&d games were nothing like what we have now. they were designed by a bunch of guys playing table top simulations who got fascinated in zooming that in. a bit like sim City creator being interested in the people and out comes the sims. same here with zoomed out battles on a tabletop and getting interested in the figures. lol.

but it was a very very rigid game and totally unforgiving. die and your constitution limited resurrection/raise dead as did how long ago you died vs when spell cast, etc. you were expected to die often and have to start over. most campaigns over by level 10 or so. often lower. because you died in a dungeon too far from any chance to resurrect/raise dead.

but people got attached to their characters which the designers of the game hadn't anticipated because they didn't. the game evolved from a rigid combat simulator to a much more forgiving system where the dice aren't final, there are no caps, and the rules are more or less whatever makes people enjoy the game. not knocking it, just noting this is indeed the games evolution.

i think it was 2nd edition thst completely removed cap and told u how to progress beyond 20 'forever'.

i still have chainmail, d&d basic, d&d expert, ad&d editions 2 books. lost d&d companions and 1st edition ad&d stuff.

I never really played it, the only contact I've had with D&D was me and one of my friends started playing BG2 when we were kids, he moved on from it but I played it every year since a few times (I'm now 32 ) I also tried all the others, Icewind dale, original BG (played that a buch too) neverwinter etc but none quite soo good as BG2, the gameplay, story, music,characters, interface,etc...
Having said that Ranger and all of its kits are just fun for me, sucks that the fighter hits harder and fights better but that's the way it is. I'm really pumped for the upcoming BG3, having played a lot or larians games, especially DOS2. I'm curious how they will handle some spells like "summon insects" or "timestop" since its turned based, and also how powerfull mages will be now that we can't interrupt their spell casting.