Why rangers?

[Dreamer128]

Most players prefer rangers over palladins, why?
Palladins get massive saving throws, some great immunities, turn undead and lay on hands.
Rangers get racial enemy an hide in shadows.
Rangers get some wimpy moon dog figure while pallys get Holy Avenger +5.
Anyone still thinks rangers are better?

[Charlie]

Dunno it they're better or not but I prefer them. They get an extra attack per round with some weapons which offsets the no +5 weapon factor and they can also cast priest spells at level 8.

[This message has been edited by Charlie (edited 03-21-2001).]

[Dreamer128]

Palladins can also cast priest spells at level 8.(I love sanctuary)
But i guess rangers are o.k for the roleplaying.

[Aurican]

When is the last time you hide in shadows and came in a wacked a demon with a paladin? Never, well thats because paladins can't use stealth. They also can't duel wield.
Who cares about what special items you get in the game, if you play for items that is ridiculous. I could make anything that any other class could have in the game. The point of even playing games like this is to ROLEPLAY. I think people that play a character just because it is the "most powerful" is stupid, play what you like instead of "Hey, I get a kickass sword if I'm a paladin."

I'm sorry about seeming hostile, but people like that bother me.

------------------
Can an elf get a break anywhere these days?

[Jimbo]

Not to start a big debate but if you don't want people to play for items don't put critters in that need certain items (with certain abilites) to kill them. Paladins get a nice weapon and will be able to go and use it on dang near all critters, and with some planing they can get to use some other nice weapons on crittres that can't be hit by there epic weapon of sorts.
It may be pettyness but people want to be active in combat and questing, feeling like they made a diffrence, not someone who sat on the sidelines doing less than what they know they could do (if only they had rolled diffrently).

Paladins are cool, but so are Rangers. Rangers have it going with alot of AD&D readers knowing about Dritz and wanting to be like him. Plus rangers are cool with the archer and spells, it gives someone the ability to be versitale.
Paladins are but less people associate with them unless there more into King Aurthor or Sparhawk.

And then there is my choice of Groo and The Grey Mouser

Cheese dip anyone ?

------------------
Drink and be merry
Jimbo
"Renegade, Rebel, and Rogue"

[Dreamer128]

You will need to do more then hide in shadows to beat a demon, the +3 to hit and +3 damage of a cavelier however do come in handy.
And in bg2 all classes can dual wield.

And i/m not just playing as an palladin because he is the most powerful but just because i like being the law.

[deverece]

I think it all averages out. People that play rangers are just writing more posts than those that play paladins.

------------------
Dying ain't much of a living, boy.
- Josey Wales

[This message has been edited by deverece (edited 03-21-2001).]

[Aurican]

The thing that annoys me the most is the fact that in PnP Dnd Rangers are supposed to be the only characters that can duel wield, art least that is what I heard. Why did the designers of BGII make it so any fighter could duel?

------------------
Can an elf get a break anywhere these days?

[BG2SOA]

I play as a thief.

[Accord]

Honestly, I prefer a paladin over a ranger, but the ranger does get two bonus proficiencies in the two weapon style fighting. And Minsc is a ranger.....

------------------
Long live H22A1!!!!!