Hi

Im going to play a ranger on the next time i start bg2 and i thought id play an elf/ranger, but then i read that elfs get a penalty to constitution which is the rangers primarily thing...so dont you guys think this is a bit stupid cause which race would be a better ranger than the elf, who loves the nature more than anything??

Thanks

I played my ranger all the way from BGI and used the book of constitution to raise mine to 18. But you can raise it to 18 by lowering your intelligence and strength.
Example:

Strength: 16 or 17 if need be, but this can be left at 16 because you can get items to increase your strength
Dexterity: 17 (you get a bonus for being an elf)
Constitution: 17 or 18...(I choose to raise mine to 18 so as to get more hit points)
Intelligence: 10
Wisdom: 14
Charisma: 14 or 15 depending on how friendly you wish to be

Oh yes, and my ranger was an elf.

<font color="gold">17 Con is absolutely enough, Ranger or not. After all, it is better to have 19 Dex then 18 Con... ;) </font>

For a low level thief, high dexterity makes a difference. For a medium to high level mage, high intelligence matters because you can scribe more spells into your spellbook. For a cleric or druid, wisdom matters because higher wisdom gives acces to more spells.
But for other classes, the stats aren't really that important. Sure, high strength helps improve close combat skills, but no more for a fighter than a bard (in fact, a bard might relatively benefit more). Same goes for dexterity, constitution, all those stats.

But that isn't even the issue here. If you believe your ranger NEEDS a constitution of 18 (which he doesn't, really) you're wrong to take an elf. If you're happy with a con of 17, you might as well take an elf as a human. Actually, in that case, you're better off with an elf. The penalty only goes so far as to say that on creation you can spend one less point on constitution.

Elves can't start with 18 con anyway.
Elf archers are lethal.You will enjoy playing one.
However I suggest str 18+ since most good bows have that requierment.

Yes, I'd suggest an elven ranger, make him an Archer in SOA if you like (which is fun). Incidentally, elves get a bonus on large swords and bows (at least in SOA, don't know about BG 1), so that'll help. It sounds pretty appropriate...elves, woods, you know?

I beat SoA and ToB with an elven archer.

Absolutely awesome character, yeah the con leaves something to be desired but that's why you play an Archer, you shouldn't get in many melee fights anyway.

My one complaint about the whole thing...
[SPOILER]
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
All the longbows, imho, suck. There're a few good shortbows and at least one neat crossbow, but none of the longbows did much for me. A longbow version of the Tuigan bow or one of the "creates its own arrows" bows would've been godly.

If you have ToB, go to Watcher's Keep as soon as possible and check the first floor to get the quiver of plenty (provides infinite arrows +1). Running out of arrows is evil.

acutally a high dex is need fora ranger for two reasons. First as an archer the dex helps with hittign the target second since you are limited in armor types the higher dex helps with AC.

I myself have bene thinking that my next archer might go with a short bow instead of the tradional long bow.

The bows suck, yes. But Archers can make a deadly weapon out of any bit of wood with a string between the ends. It's most fun using just a regular, unenchanted bow, by the way. Who needs fancy weapons after all?

"flashy ppl" need weaps I guess. lol; rangers ARE good. besides 19 dex makes up for the 17 con diff. in my opoinoin at least.

<font color="gold">I do. [img]tongue.gif[/img]

Anyway, I think there is a pretty wide selection of bows in BG2. There could have been more, oh yes, but there is enough to change good bows atleast three times in the game. There are much less good Flails and Morningstars in BG2, IMO. [img]smile.gif[/img] </font>

Hmmm, I think I'll sva eover my Sorcerer Game and Start and Archer game with all this info.

Hmmm....

P.S. MY sorcerer is weak, i selected wrong spells. To many offensive and not enough tricks and shit

The Archer Kicks ass!!!

Get him you guys, he's really good!

My main character is an Elven Archer. If you can find items to set STR to 18 (of which there are a few) and have naturally good DEX, you can be lethal in the right party set up.

Improved Haste on a high level Archer is a great tip. At the moment I'm in the Underdark and can paste an entire party of Drow before they even reach my tanks.

I usually use my Archer as a lure - I'll solo into a new area, then draw back, into a safe cleared area. The enemies following then run into my tanks (Minsc/Anomen/Jaheira) and stop for a chat. Meanwhile I can pepper them into oblivion with a volley of +1 arrows per round from my Quiver of Plenty (first level of Watcher's Keep).

The major drawback of being an Archer is getting caught in close combat. All of my proficiency slots are spent on Long Bow and Short Bow, with only a couple of points on swords etc., so if I get caught in a melee it gets messy real fast.

However, with Heartseeker +3 I can deal about 15-20 damage per arrow. Three arrows in a round gives you around 45 damage per round, which is . . . . pretty nice, actually.

I never really like Elf characters, but from a powergamer's point of view, they are the best choice for the Ranger_Archer kit.

I use Humans, and the Strongarm +2 is my longbow of choice. Deals more damage than the Heartseeker +3 whose THACO bonus is irrelevant to an Archer.

Um...

Where abouts on the first level of Watchers Keep is the quiver of plenty arrows?

And while I'm at it, how do I open the book for the ritual?

While we're on the topic of DEX vs. CON for Archers, I'd like to point out that lots of hitpoints are only important if you plan on getting hit.

That's not the best plan. [img]smile.gif[/img]