ranger or paladin?

[maskedmelon]

That's like asking: Death or Life? ^^

On a serious note though either tank fine while leveling, both have fantastic cc abilities, ranger offers more deeps and utility, paladin offers more stability. Boy are fantastic classes and both are a blast to play.

No help, I know! If you have a fungi though I'd throw it on a ranger. If you've a mana stone to pair with it though, then paladin ^^

[Sage Truthbearer]

Which role do you enjoy more in group settings: Tanking or pulling? There's your answer.

[dafier]

Originally Posted by Airdefier [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

thinking of starting either one. have a fungi tunic to throw on him as well.

Pally. I've started a Pally not long ago and have been grouping with another Pally who has a fungi.

They are REALLY fun. Rangers can't take a lot of hits, Pallys can with the proper gear.

EDIT:

Also, you can tank and pull (outdoors) if you have Jboots. [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

[thufir]

Paladins are a fairly strong class, I think. I like that you can lull and root, and critical failures on lull aren't disastrous because you are a tank class and were probably going to be getting the aggro anyway. Root lets you make up for your relative lack of aggro generation (flash of light is good, but it's almost all you have) until you get to 30 and can start stunning things. Also, a tank that can root park is pretty handy. For me the main drawback to a paladin is that you can't be an ogre. Frontal stuns depress me.

On the other hand, I make fun of rangers a lot because of their lack of defined role but properly twinked out they can kick ass for a long time. They definitely do more damage, and are better soloers. Given enough twinking, they can tank until much later in the game; rangers have great aggro generation. They have harmony which makes them great pullers in any outdoor zone. They can also sneak pull and have effective tracking. Your drawback is your lack of defined role, as mentioned. Groups looking for tanks will seek warriors or knights, groups looking for dps will favor monks and rogues, and most groups have monks to pull already so they don't look much for pullers. It leaves you out in the cold.

Comes down to what role, or lack thereof, you'd like to play, as Sage said above. If you are a group support tanky type, paladin. If you prefer a jack-of-all-trades that can solo or group, ranger.

[Waedawen]

Paladins can stun and Rangers can't, but really that's the only thing they have. Rangers with hp/ac itemization are better than warriors from 1-59, and just as strong, if not stronger, than the knights.

Hitting level 20 and have a woodsman's staff in the bag is the most fun I have ever had on EQ. And you're not tied down by having to equip shields to bash, so you deal very decent damage with proper weapons. And you can root, snare, and harmony outdoors. And you can track. "Where the nameds at?" "Right here." And if you get sick of people, you can solo much better than a Paladin can.

Paladins are much better than Rangers at tanking caster mobs because they can properly counter-spell, but really a Ranger is just as good in all the other areas.

[Morningbreath]

If you're open to fearkiting and small outdoor groups the ranger is definitely going to level faster in the long run. That's how I'm playing my ranger right now and there's a TON of classes that can cast fear. Even bards can fear at 26...

[Ivory]

Paladin....

The spells are REALLY handy. In a pinch, you can back off and start healing people. You can super tank. You can stun and pull agro. You can rez a cleric on a raid! You can lay hands and SAVE LIVES! Have some pretty awesome proc weapons!

Paladins are nice [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.] I feel safer with a good paladin around.

[Feanol]

Paladin!