Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Paladin2004 07-24-04, 08:16 PM	Are Paladins/Rangers made Obsolete if there is a Cleric/Druid+Fighter? I have met some people who believe this and take this few, and i might have to agree with them on some aspects, i just really compare, especially a ranger, to a weak substitute for either a druid or a fighter. I have never really seen any real thing about them that should draw players to choose a ranger , if they have enoguh stats to be a fighter or a druid. (apart from the good roll play of course) What do you think? Do you think rangers are water down druids with abit of fighter class. Do you think paladins are water down clerics with abit of fighter class. All comments will be good, thanks
Stuntman 07-24-04, 08:37 PM	The ranger and paladin are more than just a combination of a druid or cleric + fighter. They all have abilities that neither of the fighter, druid or cleric have. The ranger has a favoured enemy, evasion and a much richer set of skills than a druid or fighter. A ranger also has more skill points than either the druid or fighter. In the same sense, a druid/fighter will be able to do things that a ranger cannot. Druids have a much wider selection of spells than a ranger, for instance and shape change ability. The same thing could be said about a paladin. It is not a cleric plus fighter. It has some unique abilities than neither the cleric and fighter have such as the aura of courage, immunity to fear, and smite evil. The spell selection is also different.
Myst_the_Moonscout 07-24-04, 09:10 PM	I'd agree with that. I am a ranger fan, mostly because (besides being an outdoorsy person) it fits my playstyle. I like to deal big damage so the fighter aspect is appealing, and I dislike wearing heavy armour since it impedes motion (swimming and such) The ranger allows me to be tough and stealthy with some spells to toy with. Many people could (and probably will) present and argument for the "watered down" concept but, technicalities aside, there is added flavour in the concepts of the paladin and the ranger. Somehow, a cleric/fighter doesn't quite say "holy avenger".
Paladin2004 07-25-04, 08:16 AM	Yes, i can see your point. I will refer my other doubting players to this post - thanks :)
Mitchell 07-26-04, 02:15 AM	Assuming no prestige classes are involved, you have to look at the trade-offs. A ranger will do better in the long-haul comparison than a paladin, imo, primarily because of the skill list. Just look at the skill lists, skill points/level, and the special abilities of the class vs. those of the multiclass. This is all off the top of my head, and the multiclass abilities are largely hypothetical, dependent on the details of the split (a 10/10 cleric fighter will look much different than a 5/15 or 15/5). All are potentially there, but the ones that favor the fighter stuff will improve at the expense of the cleric stuff, and vice-versa. Paladin: Detect evil at will, lay on hands, special mount, immunity to disease, charisma bonus added to saves, better BAB, more HPs. Cleric/fighter: Better spell list, better spell progression, more feats. Saving throws I'm not sure about, but any benefit gained by cleric levels may be offset by the paladins bonus to saves. Ranger: Superior skill list, more skill points, built in TWF or bow style feats, better BAB, uncanny dodge, better reflex save, better weapon selection. Druid/fighter: Better will save, wildshape, more open feats, more HPs, better spell progression, better spell list. I'm sure that I missed some things, and wildshape is huge, but I don't feel that it makes up for everything else overall. I'm sure that someone may feel that I'm wrong, but I think it comes down to personal style. I would rather play a ranger than a druid/fighter for sure. The paladin vs. the cleric/fighter is a closer call. If I'm going to be LG anyway, probably a paladin, just because. If LG doesn't work so well, then a cleric/fighter.