Rangers: Stealthy or tanks?

Remove all ads!

I'm trying out a Cleric/Ranger multiclass solo. Just curious, if you've played one before (or just a ranger) do you stick with the light armor and go stealthy, or do you throw on that full plate and tank it?

 

Both. I have a set of full plate for the daytime, and some light armor to sneak around during the night. You can always retreat to put the full plate on before battle, and once you're engaged in battle, stealth doesn't help much anyway.

 

Tanks.. Longsword, tower Shield, Full Plate, elven dex, Boots of Avoidance, Girdle of Piercing and Voila, send him up front, and nobody hits him!

Up untill now i haven't used a rangers stealth once.

 

Then why are you using a ranger in the first place? A fighter would do the same and would require less XP to level up, in bg dual wielding wasn't incorporate... you're strange Thor...

Anyway I agree, do both sometimes stealth is usefull other going into battle is better.

 

I prefer stealth and hit-and-run tactics when I use rangers. Archers attacking from the shadows are mightily effective in BG1.

The only exception to this rule is Minsc, who I don't consider a ranger, anyway.

 

I use stealth of my ranger for scouting and than I let him shot away his arrows when he is seen or attacks an enemy.

I only wished the armor at the smithy in Beregost could be used by the Ranger. It only provides additional skills in Stealth and is only usable by a thief. That to me is dumb.

 

I use Ranger's as tanks.

Equip them with full plate, ring of protection +2 (or +1), large shield +1 (or +2), Scimitar +5 Defender, Helm of Glory, Bracers of Dex (if your dex isn't 18+) turn the sound off in BG1 and window it and start playing that strange song that has something like You Can't touch this and start killing EVERYTHING!

NOTE: I can't remember if there was a ring of protection +2 or a large shield +2 in BG1

*EDIT* Sometimes I get 2 rangers and use 1 for range combat and the other 1 for meleeing

 

A good bit of both. Most of my games have usually endup with my main character Elf-ranger, kivan, and Coran. So i have switched them all between tanking and stealthing back and forth. In all manner of situations. For example my character might be wearing the fullplate and ring of prot, longsword and shielf, while kivan does teh ranged attacks. And coran with hes standard shadow armor and comosite longbow +1 sneaks in and out and snipes. Next fight i might change the equipment all around.

Note, places like forexample the Cloackwood mines is anoyinglly easy with three great archers and the fighter4 script. I dont even need to do anything, save move them into a new room when one is empty.

 

I never really messed with any of the stealth stuff that my Ranger could do, he was basically my Archer.

It was my first run through of a PC RPG so I really had no idea what else to do with him ^^;

 

RPers: avert your gaze!

Ok, fair warning...

Kill Drizzt. Then you can do both.

Of course, there's really no excuse* (for anyone of good alignment), but it's not too tough to manage (if you're patient) and nets you the items rangers most appreciate. Just make sure your rep is about 13~14 to avoid falling from the punishment for killing an "innocent".

* Mine is usually that Drizzt is too much of an annoying stereotype to be permitted to live, but some may disagree.

 

I don't understand. Drizz't made the stereotype that so many imitate (including every dual weilding 2e Ranger!).

 

I use both, although rangers are better at stealth than thieves since they don't have to split skill points amongst FT, PL and PP.

 

Tank it up, in BG1 ranger stealth is not usefull at all. I really don't see much difference between the fighter and ranger in BG1, in fact the fighter is better at a range than the ranger.

 

Ummm, rangers didn't earn that title because they can fight at "range"...

 

Klorox, Fighter's are better at range then a ranger in BG1 because Rangers are limited to 2 stars in range weapons (bow, missile weapons and axe) but fighters can put a super ammount of 4 stars into range weapons and thus fighters are better at range then rangers.

But with rangers you can charm that animal that was attacking you and/or is annoying (or you just want it's help). You peeps forgot about charm animal the rangers have (by the sounds of it). Rangers should melee cause charm the animal that's attack you and use that animal you fight other enimies for a little bit then kill it. With your mad melee powers and the animals somewhat good melee powers YOU CAN WIN!

 

Yeah, but how often are you in a situation where you are fighting some tough enemies AND there are some handy animals just hanging around waiting to be charmed AND you have time to charm them before being attacked?

 

@ klorox most people associate rangers with using ranged weapons, before I knew anything about D&D rules i figured that the ranger was the person who used the bow.

 

The reason why rangers tend to use the bow more is because they usually wear light armour and therefore have high dexterity to maintain their AC. This high dexterity thus imprtoves their aim with a bow and usually comes at the expense of strength, given that a ranger also needs to put points into wisdom and constitution, thus further weakening his melee abilities.

 

I always forget that Rangers are supposed to be wilderness experts in the D+D games.

It must be FFXI's Rangers that corrupt my view of them D:

 

Very often, that's why BG1 allows you to take some NPC's in your team, so you can use them as shield's and/or decoys so you can charm those animals. Or were NPC's that join your party suppose to be used as teammates.....

Well you probably won't be able to do it unless you're on wilderness area.