I can't think of any real compelling reasons to be a Paladin or Ranger, except to Role-Play or use the Holy Avenger.

In AD&D, the Warhorse made the Paladin great. The Dual-wield and initial HP bonus made the Ranger great. In BG2, you don't get a warhorse, and anyone can dual-wield.

The pure fighter gets 5 specialization points in specific weapons. Plus they go up in level faster. The low-level spells the Pally and Ranger get are quite useless at the level they get them. If they could use scrolls, it might be different, but they can't. An 18th level ranger or pally fighting a Lich would not be using "Know Alignment" or "Cure Light Wounds".

Is role playing those chars really worth it? The Holy Avenger IS a beast of a sword, and makes it almost worthwhile to be a Pally in THIS game, but the Ranger is just inferior. Plus, Half-orcs can have 19 str and Con and 18 Dex, making them the best fighters BY FAR, and they can't be Rangers or Pallys.

Any compelling arguements for other than role-playing?

One of the reasons that I believe attracted me to be a ranger is that I personally identify myself with the Ranger...it seems to be more real for me. I also feel that my allignment of Chaotic Good fits the Ranger,
(in my opinion, anyway...)
That is why I role play one.
Another is maybe because I love the books by R.A. Salvadore, with Drizzt. He has become the most popular character in Faerun, and he is a ranger. I always imagined what it would be like to be along side of him in the book, "Exile", one of my favorites.
Though we all like to play what amuses us, like a Paladin, or Evil mage, it is also cool to play a char. that is close to your own personality. You become more of the story, and less of just a game.

Rangers also have other abilities as well. They gain a bit of lore and usually get better proficiency with a bow. Not quite like an archer, but that's beyond the point. I really prefer to class change from the Ranger (playing human) to either a thief or a cleric too. This gives them some really powerful abilities. You can choose this right away too, but I really do prefer a human. 3rd edition is even better. It will allow a human to multi-class right away. They do lose some points in their second class, but I don't mind that. I believe this will make for a better category of HERO. I mean, look in a lot of the old D&D books and you will see a HERO listed in them with like 3 classes. That's originally what got me interested in dual classing. Humans in the beginning were not limited in levels to how high they could go. The non-humans were limited. They could not pass like 10th level across the board. What use would there be in playing a human if they didn't have some kind of advantage. I mean, the demi-humans usually had +'s here or +'s there. They had infravision and they could be better with weapons or an enemy just because of their race. All that changed with 2nd edition and now it's all changed with 3rd. I wonder how that will transfer over to NWN? It is supposed to be 3rd edition while Baldur's Gate II is modified 2nd? Anyways, Rangers have tracking skills and other abilities in the real PnP game. They can Hide Without A Trace, much like a Thief uses their thieving abilities. When matched to a thief, this will allow you to choose most other things beside stealth. You can't use the Ranger's stealth until the thief surpasses the Ranger level, but it is still there throughout. Plus with the Rangers hitpoints (Before, they had the most starting off hitpoints too, cause they got double hitpoints at 1st level). But back to the stealth. So you can devote most, if not all of your points to the other abilities. This may seem a handicap, but that's why I usually either purchased a ring of invisibility or something that would help the stealth til I earned it back (you did have the Rangers hitpoints to help your thief survive through the transition). Eventually, it makes for a wicked combination.

The other possibility that I like to persue is the Ranger/Cleric. They gain the multiple attacks of the Ranger, plus they gain the druidical spells. You may not see this as much, but when mixed that gives them all the Clerical and Druidical spells when earned. I like to use IronSkins with Righteous Magic. Protects the Ranger from the first five attacks and maxes out his attacks for a long time. I've used it in like 3 combats at a time. The IronSkins only lasts as long as the attacks, so it's not as usefull, but you can memorize more than one. There are other spells too, like Sanctuary and Finger Of Death. I haven't tried Gate yet, but hey, a Ranger that can fight like that and cast clerical spells is pretty wicked too.

Oh yeah, One last thing about the Ranger/Thief combo too. Once the character can use both classes, you get one hell of a backstab. For however many attacks the Ranger gets in a round, you can backstab with it. My Ranger is allowed two attacks per round and he gets like damage x 5 with his backstab. Most times (with his strength bonus and the weapon damage bonus) I do like 110 - 130 points of damage with 1 attack. This will allow him to get up to 260 points of damage with his 1st attack. Not too shabby. Granted, a straight fighter could get this too, but with the stealth option of the Ranger assisting the thief, you get a more well rounded thief than you could with just a fighter. Just a thought.

Using Ranger for Dual makes sense, especially if you Dual to cleric (thus giving u access to Druid spells). But to play a ranger or pally in these games still seems to be a handicap.

Yeah, in AD&D Rangers started out with 2d8 HPs, but went up with d8 instead of d10 like Paladins and Fighters.

As for NWN, I'm signed up and I have a bunch of guild members who are going to build custom maps and dungeons.

www.thewolfclan.net

As far as playing a Paladin goes, I simply identify with it. Were I "alive" in the realms that'd be my career choice, an Evil smiting paladin!.

The great thing about Paladins (when they get to a real high level) is that they can act as another healing party when you original cleric has exausted his/her spells. Also they can lay on hands, use Holy Avengers and other evil smiting weapons (one in IWD a longsword +7 against evil allied characters)

Holy Avenger does make a case for the Paladin, plus the different bonuses yu can get from the sub-classes makes up partially for the loss in specialization. That +7 LS wasn't only for a Paladin in IWD, so that wouldn't be much of a draw. I do like that dispel magic skill with the Inquisitor (?) - cast in 1 segment, double the level of the pally. That means an 18th level pally could cast that spell as a lvl 36 char, and do it 4 times a day!!!! I could have REALLY used that. Usually when I used dispel magic, my level was too low against the caster and my success was about 30%. That skill alone may make the Pally useful.

Ranger I'm still searching... Since Aragorn was a Ranger, we all want to be a Ranger... And I found one compelling reason to be a mid-level ranger - you start off with 2 FREE skill points in Dual-wield. Well, this char could be a great addition to the party as the "jack of all trades" weapons expert. In a game, you never know what you will find as a weapon (+4 Halbard, etc), and to have a char that can use many different weapons is great in the beginning and middle of the game. The charm animal ability also comes in handy in a lot of places, I also used it when my cleric summoned animals and the bad guys turned them on me. Those extra two SPs the ranger gets in dual-wield are really great in the beginning of the game. Especially if you want to dual class right away to cleric.

BTW - you can't be a Ranger/Thief - it is not a valid combo. You can only dual to classes available to multi-class - so look at the half-elf or elf. Neither can be a Ranger/Thief. I thought that would be cool also - or a Ranger/Mage. No dice, I tried...

You must not have high enough stats to class change then, because I have been running a Ranger/Thief combo. Only problem with this class is that you have to use the Ranger class first, then switch to thief. Trust me, it works. Don't forget that you have to have at least 17 in Dexterity before switching. I think you have to have really high stats in Strength and Constitution too. When I class changed the Ranger I had from BG1, he had 20 strength and 19 constitution (from books I got from BGI). He is awesome at backstabs because of his strength bonus, weapon specialization (not as good as a thief/fighter mix though), and +'s from the weapon. When he hits, he hits good. I added the remove xp bonus to my game too and I get x5 backstabs right now. I'm waiting to see if it will go up more.

I also ran a variant of this class too. He is also a Ranger/Cleric. I really do prefer this combination because of the armor restrictions for the thief class. The Ranger/Cleric can wear armor and still cast his druidical/clerical spells. Also, he does get all the priest spells for his alignment too.

I like to play a ranger for the same reason as larr2. I ascosiate with the role. When I play a ranger it helps draw me into the story more deeply. Sure they may not be as strong in a fight as some but role playing has always been about more than how good a fighter I am. And I agree,Choatic Good is the best aligment for them. What use have we for laws in the deep woods?. Who cares if the Law is served so long as justice is done. I do what I feel is right, the law be damned.

Well, whether being a paladin or a ranger is worthwhile or not matters little cuz we all know that MAGES RULE!!! I mean the mage has to be the most skilled class to be, along with prolly the druid. With a fighter,ranger,pali all you need to do is click once and let the game do the rest. Whereas with a mage you have to be constantly working on stradygy and casting spells. The mage is prolly the most strategic class to be. Im not saying that the other classes require no skill or are weak, but mages are more harder to control than a say fighter for instance, ESPECIALLY in multiplayer.(unless you are the pc that can pause the game) otherwise it is quite difficult and therefore more challenging. Anyways thats my oppinion. Oh yeah, in bg2 did they make it so everyone can pause like in IWD or has it stayed the same?
Anyways thats my oppinion.

Well, I chose the Cavalier(Paladin kit) for a couple of reasons. First, I do identify with the character, and I enjoy roleplaying a holy, powerful and respected warrior. Second, a paladin has many advantages. As a Cavalier, I am able to heal my party members with Lay on Hands, Cure light wounds and Slow Poison, I can cast Remove Fear, Detect evil, Protection from Evil, as well as some useful clerical spells like Armor of Faith and Bless, plus I have a +2 bonus to saving throws, am immune to fear and poison and am a fearsome fighter. Currently, my THAC0 with the Holy Avenger is 1, and my AC is a fairly good -5.

In BG II they changed the way proficiencies work. In Icewind Dale, 3 proficiencies was as a big a jump from 2 proficiencies as two prof's was from one. It made fighters ultra powerful and left rangers, multiclass fighters and paladins pretty worthless. By lowering the value of having more than 2 proficiencies, they did balanced it up a lot more. If you want to dual wield you will either be left with being specialized in one or two weapons, or you will have to go ranger. The experience penalty still is a bit steep though. But there are reasons to have the spells as a paladin: you get the armor of faith spell that absorbs 10% of ANY FORM of damage. This spell is instantaneous and should be cast in every battle. Sanctuary may also useful if the paladin wants to get draw the enemy in or something (does it allow the stalker to backstab, it is invisibility). The ranger spells aren't so good, but their skills are a little more useful.

By the way, there definitely are no ranger-thieves allowed in the game. The only way to get it is to cheat.

Nobody really notest but Rangers and Paladain can cast spells that the main reason you chose them
in if you don't have a druid the Ranger will be abl to cast summon insekt (a very lo one but still)
and paladin can turn undead too if you don't have a cleric
what use are the 3rd 4th and 5th slot anyway they only give a 1/2 attack extra thats not really a difference since your fightewr will only be fighting the weaker enemies and your mages will kill the harder ones (dubble time stop and 4 times Abi-somthing horrit wilthing in those time stops will kill anyone)

Advanced specialisation in a weapon makes a fair difference, Rikard, if not in attacks per round then in to hit and damage. +5. You also get more criticals, if memory serves correctly.

You don't get more damage and to hit after 2nd

I just wish the charecter rules where more like AD&D I want a gnomish palidan I want anyone to be anything well its agreed NWN will kick ass. Who knows maybe jon can edit the whole game of BG to let us use any class with any race.

Says here you get a +1 bonus to to hit, a +1 bonus to damage, an extra attack and a half, a bonus to weapon speed factor and criticals scored on a roll of either 19 or 20.

Actually rangers can cast armor as well. At any rate, there is no extra half attack at five proficiencies. At least the manual does not report it.

Sure it does. Page 101.

No it doesn't. Grand master: 5 points spent, +2 to hit, +3 damage, 3/2 attacks per round. (Compare with specialized: +1 to hit, +2 damage, 3/2 attacks per round; and IWD's grand master: +3, +5, 2 attacks per round)

Eh? Isn't that cumulative? I'm sure you're supposed to get more attacks per round for advanced specialisation.

No, it's not cumulative. That would be ridiculous. +7 to hit, +9 damage? Anyway, the proof is comparing Korgan to my PC who only is specialized. Korgan has 1 better thaco not counting the strength bonuses. He also has no more attacks per round. They made having five proficiencies in a weapon in BG II worse than someone with three proficiencies in Icewind Dale. A good balancing act.

No, I wasn't saying the to hit and damage were cumulative, I was only assuming you got an extra half an attack per round for each proficiency point. Balancing act? It's ludicrous. What set of rules were Bioware following when they thought this up? Certainly not those from the P&P. It sounds as if fighters have been just about nerfed down to paladins without the spells, and they don't even level up any faster!

Yep, it's true (though you never did get additional half attacks per extra proficiency in BGI or IWD). There's a hack out there that restores the AD&D rule that you get two attacks per round as a grand master. Who knows, maybe this nerf on grand masters was unintentional (though it is true both in game when you pump in the points, and in manual). The change making masters (3 slots) no longer overwhelmingly better than specialized was the right decision, though. I think it's a bit of a waste to put more than three slots in a proficiency (like speed faction did anything).

Nonetheless, you should have the choice to master a weapon, and there should be reason to consider it. If they were going to make advanced specialisation so worthless, they should have made fighters level up at a faster rate than paladins, rangers and barbarians. If you still got the +3 and +5 bonuses to hit and damage, perhaps not, but +2 and +3 over +1 and +2 isn't worthwhile at all.

They do level up faster (barbarians are the same as fighters apparently), by about 10-20% faster. A fighter needs only 3 million exp to be level 20, and the paladin needs 3.6 mill.

Well, with cheating and exp. cap remover, that would be easy : P

You're right. Pallies and rangers cap at seventeen, pure fighters cap at nineteen. Still, I feel like I'm getting ripped off. Any idea where I can find that proficiency fix, then? Bugrit, I might as well just start again and not bother going past regular specialisation. I'd be able to specialise in axes and halberds that way, too.

I personaly used a paladin: undead hunter in this game. As for many out there I simply enjoy playing the role, think of the paladin as a fighter with class and high charisma. But the undead hunter has some advantages such as he is immune to hold and level drain (comes in handy against vampires)and has bonuses against the undead (combined with the daystar sword this guy will make any vampire wet his pants in fear). bottom line: I wanted a fighting type of character that had something a little different than just a bash everything in sight low IQ fighter.

Hey GW, although I do cheat on some things from time to time, I did not cheat creating the ranger/thief. I was really shooting to create a ranger/magic-user, but that was not an available option. I used the dual class option built into the game and I could only change into either a cleric or a thief. Well, I saved the game and tried both options. I will have to say that playing a Ranger/Cleric was much easier to do than to play a Ranger/Thief. I was extremely limited to my options as a thief. The backstab and the Rangers stealth options more than compensated for it though. I was able to just put points into opening locks and finding/removing traps until I got a high enough level to gain back my ranger's stealth option. Because the other stats went up so fast, I was able to max out pick pocketing too. As for role playing, I did try to keep up with my Ranger ethos by not pick pocketing during the game though. I don't know why you couldn't dual class to the thief, except to think that your stats weren't high enough to get it. Hmmmm. Well, anyways, if I was to cheat to create a Ranger class, it would have been for the Ranger/Magic-User. Ever since the Ranger first came out in PnP D&D, they allowed the Ranger to have Magic-User spells. When 2nd edition came out and they made him/her have Druidical spells, I kinda lost interest. I mean, if I'm gonna have druidical spells, why not just make my character a Paladin? They get more benefits. Can go anywhere and be offered a place to stay and eat for nothing except their faith. They usually start off with better equipment too. I guess that's why they go up so slow in levels. Course, the Ranger goes up fairly slow too. Even more reason to try and play him solo. Just because you can't choose an option in a game (that someone else says they can do) doesn't mean they are cheating, it just means that your environment is different. I have the 1st version of BGII (collector's edition) with bonus CD's installed (no patches). Perhaps something in this combination makes it where I could class change him like that. I don't know. I did roll for like 3 hours straight until I got pretty decent scores though. I did have a Ranger/thief from BGI, but during the interim of waiting for BGII to come out, I had a hard drive crash and had to re-install everything. Needless to say, I lost everything as well.

Ouch my eyes! Good idea to use paragraphs in future Tobbin. (smiles)

Armisael you can find the proficiency fix at www.teambg.com

It does make a difference with Grand Mastery.

Why am I Paladin? I like the Holy Sword, the ability to cast heal spells (the more the merrier, in my opinion. All my people would be able to if I could =-) and it fits my personality. Plus, my first DM liked Paladins and told me I would be a good one. =-)

No, in this game there is no Stead (my last one was a Hippogriff in AD&D) and I don't have any magic spells. But where would you be with no fighters in front of you to take the heat from the other brutes? I think all classes have their high points and low points. It just depends on whatever strikes a nerve with you, the person.

BK

I posted the answer to the prof and attacks per round question in a separate thread titled "Grandmaster Nerfed?", check it out. This will make the diff between Fighters and Pallys/Rangers with respect to combat a little clearer. It also shows why the Holy Avenger is so powerful with its very low speed factor, thus making a Pally in this game an "almost" must.