Pally vs Ranger
 

Hey all!

I'm getting pretty pumped for Green and like always, having a hard time deciding the class. I've been on the EQ train since like 2000 and have damn near played every class except Pally or Ranger. Ive dicked around on them both but never past like level 20, so I'm looking for the masses to try and sway me in a direction. Are Pallys more fun come Lguk time? Do Rangers have more fun because of the spell line they get? Are both just shunned and I should roll Druid?

Woodelf is my favorite race but my original character was Highelf Mage, so I could go either way!

Please instill your mighty forum wisdom.

Paladins get the best weap in classic with Fiery Avenger. Rangers are to be made fun of non stop in classic.

What are your goals?

- Is it important that you are among the first players to reach maximum level?
- Do you want to be embraced by levelling groups?
- Do you want to be racing for server first raid targets?
- Do you want to be one of the highest contributors on your guilds' raids?

If your answer to any of those questions, you probably don't want to play Ranger or Paladin. At the end of the day the 40% more experience required to level up means you are going to be falling behind in levels compared to your peers. Combine that with the fact that groups will potentially be shunning hybrids all together to ensure that their own experience is not slowed down, and you may be taking a while to reach max level.

Since you will be taking longer to reach max level, it also means you may not be able to participate very well on your guilds' endeavours. If you are interested in doing server firsts, you may be too low level to participate when it all opens up. Whereas if you played a Halfling Rogue, or a Halfling Warrior, you would be right in the thick of it.

Paladin and Rangers are also not going to be high contributors on raids in general. Warriors are typically favored for tanking abilities (even though in classic, shadowknight/paladin are great IMO) which means your Paladin will not likely be a primary tank, and their DPS is pretty bad in comparison to other melee classes. Rangers in general are really cool, and I like them myself. However they are just not going to be comparable in DPS to a rogue or monk.

Now that this is out of the way: do you still want to play one of these classes? You should honestly. As long as those first questions were all answered as 'No', then play whatever your heart desires. Do you want to be tanking, or do you want to be DPSing? Also in outdoor zones, Rangers are fantastic pullers. Kings of the Karanas, and Karnor's Castle!

for classic launch? Agnostifc High elf mage if that is your option. Guise of the deceiver will allow safe travels in evil and good/neutral cities alike. (Given that you don't destroy your faction).

As far as your main goes -- I have replied to a similar question about warrior/monk and offered my suggestion up to play a ranger.

Paladins will only out dps sks/rangers in the undead environment. They have one of the weakest DPS otherwise. But for what they do, they do very well in dealing with the undead with a ghoulbane.

Paladins can pull via lull line, rangers can pull via harmony (albeit outdoors only). Both can heal. Paladins stun, while rangers snare. Paladins are aspiring clerics, while rangers are 1/3 druid. Paladins like 2hs -- rangers prefer to dual wield. Aggro? Flame lick wins imo and goes to the ranger.

Honestly pick whatever you see yourself playing long term. Do you like the idea of being a holy knight, banishing the undead? Or are you more untamed, with the will to go anywhere on your own and explore the wilderness with a sword in each hand?

Rangers are the meme class of EQ -- but in classic they are the most versatile melee class imo. And most melee/ chain classes are shooting for rubicite as their base line for armor -- which is ranger wearable -- meaning, they can have the same AC as all the other tanks -- but with the utility and spell line to make grouping effective and hold aggro.

The basic difference between this class, among lots of little ones is, one excels outdoors and the other would fair better indoors.

If you personally want to spend more time tracking, sow'ing, and killing creatures in the outside world of classic everquest, I would say go ranger.

But if your vision is of you in the dark dungeons, delving deep to fight goblins and the undead, I would say go for paladin.

If you are a dungeon nut, the ranger feels less powerful after Mistmoore, but if you are a named outdoor tracker, and that's what you want to do the most, then go ranger.

I've played a few classic servers. Rangers are very capable. I always saw the 1 ranger in a raids in top 3 dps. And if vox is going to drop Mistwalker then you will see rangers being top classic dps for a long while.

Ranger is my favorite. Pallies good too, but Ranger has more utility, and can always generate DPS unlike pallies. DPS always stacks - tanking does not until high end raids.

When I read min/maxing BS like this, I don't even want to play this game anymore. This game used to be the place to come and play with others that loved the game. Sure, leveling and gear are important, but that was secondary to the actual experience of EQ.

What happened? How did WoW players end up here to make the hybrid experience penalty a thing?

Min/Maxing was always a thing in EQ, we just didn't know all the tricks back then.

This is like boomers blaming millennials for everything they hate. WoW players have nothing to do with it ya weirdo.