Paladin vs Ranger

[War Nerve]

For my next character, I was thinking of either playing another cavalier with the Holy Avenger, of course, or else a dual wielding ranger with, say, crom faeyr and flail of the ages. Either way, it would be like an improved version of either Keldorn or Minsc. I'm having trouble deciding, though. Who do you think would win a 1 vs 1 match between a Cavalier or a Ranger, if they each had identical gear and stats except for the weapons?

[Archer14]

I like paladins better but if you've already tried one do the ranger for a change.

I wouldn't duel weild those two weapons though. I would use celestial fury unstead of the flail of the ages.

[Laksol]

In my eyes, cavalier is stronger.

Ranger? Playable, but dull, special abilities suck. You could try more versatile kit like archer.

Crom? Let your buddy enjoy it.

[Big B]

I vote Ranger. If he is too "dull" (yeah right) then you could do MC Ranger/Cleric or DC Ranger/Cleric. But yes I would vote Ranger. Also, I would dual wield Crom and Flail of Ages and never with Celestial Fury, IMHO a katana and a warhammer or flail looks terrible and out of place. And that is not easy for me to say because Celestial Fury is my favorite weapon in the game hands down. Still I would use Crom and Flail of the Ages because they are both blunt/spiked weapons of similar size and seem like they would work hand in hand together (pun intended ).

[This message has been edited by Big B (edited November 12, 2001).]

[Thomas Covenant]

Heh if you tried Paladin, with 2handed swords go for ranger this time. Forget about dual wielding, use archer:
lvl 9, thac0 -2, 4 att per round
damage: 12-15 + additional fire or acid dmg
102 stealth, just to line up
------
Yielding:
Possibility of 52 + 4-12 damage, during first round, meaning he's dead half way towards you.


If you have an extra cavalier next to you, he would be still reaching for his sword...

[Ragusa]

Generaly I'd say the cavalier is best - however, playing an archer or (if you like backstabbing and haven't played a fighter-thief yet) stalker. Both could be quite interesting to play.

As for the cavalier: You have played one yourself - you should know about his power

As for the archer: excellent class, formidable punch and extremely useful when you have someone draw the enemies into melee so the archer can take them out at range (this is especially important in cities where robbers and vampires attack from various directions, not so muck in dungeon/ forrest ares where you can use hide & sneak tactics)

As for the stalker: Can cast some spells, has a better THACO than a fighter-thief, and excellent stealth. Disadvantages are his inability to find traps and gather xp by opening locks and disarming traps. Basically I think the fighter thief is more versatile and useful.

[This message has been edited by Ragusa (edited November 12, 2001).]

i like ranger better. my caliver packed a better punch but ranger just seemed better for some reason. maybe you should play with both like in my demon and dragon slaying game.

[TIN_MAN]

I would vote for the cavalier. It was a fun to watch how my paladin turned the vampires in Bodhi's lair at level 17! He didn't even have to swing Carsomyr once!!! Yes! paladins are far better!

[Headbanger]

It's not too iumportant. Play what you most like to play.. and then when you play a palading, get Minsc in your party or when you play a ranger, take Keldorn in your party.

Or another, even better solution: Start a MP game. Create two characters, a Ranger AND a Paladin. Make a save and copy the savegame to the map Baldur's Gate 2\save and now you can play a singleplayer-game with two characters, and the NPC's you want.

CAVALIERS!

I've played both, and let me tell ya, just for Carsomyr, I'd choose Cavalier. I've been playing a game with the legendary Cavalier Launcelot of the Lake, and I've yet to be disappointed.

But if you plan on making a Ranger with Flail of the Ages and Crom Faeyr, I'd recommend going one step further and making him a Ranger/Cleric. Trust me, you won't be disappointed. You get both Cleric and Druid spells up to 7th casting level

[This message has been edited by Demonater351 (edited November 13, 2001).]

[Aurum]

Paladin, Cavalier, has hard defeat, turn deads can kill lichs, vampires, momies and more.

[Big B]

Aye, but a R/C can turn undead just as well.

[Ragusa]

Hmm, I have to try out the turn undead ability again - since I usually use fighter-1 script for my halfling cavalier I was rarely able to use it properly for it overrides my commands for instant frontal attack ...

Thanks for the hint

[Satanatron]

BAH!

Rangers and Paladins are overrated!

Get a mage...

[Big B]

Hmmm that's interesting as I would consider mages overrated. Paladins overated, yes. But Rangers? No.

[War Nerve]

I would play a mage, but it's just an issue with me that my character must always be in the front of the formation, and mages don't do so well in the front

[Headbanger]

A mage is more overrated then a range rof paladin I think. It all depends on with what weapons you use etc. Rangers and Paladins are less good then monks, kensais and pure fighters in my opinion. And there are so many great mage-items that mages are at least as much overrated at rangers and paladins.

IMO paladins are boring. Using the same sword, no matter how good it is, is always boring. Rangers are a lot more fun, especially the kits. Beastmaster isn't too fun to play but the Stalker and Archer are awsome. I actually prefer the stalker over the Archer; he's a lot more fun to play, perfect at hit and fade tactics. The armor restriction isn't really a restriction in my eyes, a ranger should never be wearing anything heavier than leather, he's a man of the wood for crying out loud! BTW, the paladin is a fighter spin off of the cleric and the ranger is the same of the druid. Try a Ranger/Cleric for extra fun. It's more of a priest than fighter but it does both jobs well IMO. I don't think any class is "better" than another, I just find rangers more enjoyable to play. If you really don't like either one try being a little more extreme and play a cleric or a druid.

[Satanatron]

I don't believe mages are overrated at all. As for Pallys and Rangers, I stand by my comments.

I believe that the Inquis and the Undead Hunter Pallys are okay in SoA (though using them would bore me to tears). As for the Cav, I think he is Mediocre at best in SoA.

And Rangers, just as boring, except the Archer which is passable. The Stalker is rubbish... wanna backstab? Then get a real thief, not a wannabe! And as for the other kit... well, I'm not even gonna acknowledge it.

Mages overrated? On the contrary my dear Watson.

Remember that a large majority of the more formidable opponents in SoA are mage class characters; namely Liches, High Level Mages, the Cowelled Wizards and Irenicus himself. They have powerful defensive spells preventing them from physical harm, can stop time and generally wreak offensive magic havok on the whole party. Indeed, in SoA the main method to disable a mage's defensive spells is by using the spells of your own mage, who is a necessity for your party.

An intelligent and experienced gamer who has the knowledge of the ins and outs of the majority of spells available can and usually does change the course of a difficult battle with a single cleverly placed spell.

I don't find mages overrated at all, infact I'd go as far to say that they are probably underrated. I know when I use mages all it takes is one or two timestop spells (scroll or otherwise) and the battle is as good as over.

S

[Tiamat]

I'd take an Archer, since they make formidable missile fighters and good backup fighters. The game already has a great Inquisitor for you.

Stalkers aren't rubbish. Unlike the theif they get those extra spells and they do much more damage in a backstab even if the multiplier is lower. Not everyone wants to play a theif, but many people find backstabbing to be fun. They are also fun to play from a roleplaying sense of view. Some of us aren't powergamers...........

[This message has been edited by Lord Sarevok (edited November 19, 2001).]

[Satanatron]

Lord Sarevok....

In the mighty words of Irenicus,

"You bore me mageling"...

S

[The DMage]

I personally don't like the a straight mage that much, as I found myself not wanting to use spells in case the true monster was yet to come. I mean, sure, after the first time through this becomes rather irrevalant at most points (We really need to find a way to brainwash past games off our minds or something.... and no, waiting a couple years doesn't count ) but still, I couldn't get rid of this nagging feeling I'd forgotten something.
Also, I found the concept of the constant resting required to maintain a mage rather dull. I mean, after one or two of those "critically placed spell/s", my mage's usefulness took a rather dramatic drop on the influence of a battle, and so, my party, not wanting to carry around a dead weight, would go rest. Eight hours later, everyone except the mage would feel exactly the same as eight hours before. This is just my take on straight mages (Nothing againest dc/mc mages, as I find them much more useful as the need to rest isn't nearly as felt).

Try a Sorcerer. If you pick good spells you plan on using he rules. You do miss out on a lot of spells but I usually find myself using a max of 4 or 5 spells per level with a regular mage. Don't try to be everything and everything with him. I usually have my sorcerer be a howitzer with all offensive spells, but that's just me. I just think if you try to get too many different types of spells he won't be very good. Get a backup mage like Imoen to cast the other spells.