Quote:
Originally posted by Marty4:
The reason that I don't like rangers is probably due to my play style being anything butscout and smash.
The most I ever use ranger is adding a level on to a character for dual wielding feats. Still, maybe I'll make a "scout and smash" party some time [img]smile.gif[/img] .
|
BTW, it was really only my ranger and rogue that were "scout and smashers". The rest were your average pally, cleric, sorc, etc.
As Gimli mentioned, scout and smashers are great for taking out spellcasters before the "party" even starts. This team was great in the ice temple. They'd sneak into some of the rooms and take out a couple of the spellcasters and draw the attention of everyone else while the other 4 members of my party came running thru the door to join the melee.
The one thing that you have to be careful about with a little strike team like this is to NOT try to "hang in there" when there are a lot of baddies in the room. Kill your main 1 or 2 targets and scoot. You don't want to get surrounded, cuz if you do, you're toast.
BTW, I would play always my rangers as max DEX, moderate STR, leather-wearing, stealthy dual-wielding archers. When stealth was not an issue, they'd usually act as the party's primary archer and 3rd tank. I woouldn't put them in the melee wall unless necessary, cuz I'd prefer to let'em pepper the enemy with arrows. While ranged weapons may not be the total death machines they were in IWD1 or BG2, a good archer can still make life miserable for enemy spellcasters. And I would use him as the party's means of adding in that little extra damage to finish off wounded enemies anywhere on the battlefield. A pure ranger can get off a lot of arrows in a round and cause a lot of damage with little risk. OTOH, when required, he could put his bow aside and pull out his 2 short swords and wreak some pretty serious damage if the bad guys were starting to overrun my melee wall.
And having a ranger in my party meant that I had wilderness lore covered for my party.
