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?