In terms of power, what it comes down to is the kits. The low level cleric spells that paladins and rangers get COULD make the difference, but they really don't, since it's a pain casting the buffs before a battle and it really isn't necessary anyway. fighter will be the best killer, paladin will have a bit of healing ability, and the ranger will be able to hide in shadows without backstab. If we're talking about BG1, it doesn't really matter. I guess it really depends on what you are looking for in a melee character. I prefer the inquisitor for their dispel magic, but undead hunter and cavalier are both solid classes as well. Paladin's are also quite powerful, particularly in BG2.

They do get a few useful spells that they share with druids, and if you dual class a ranger into a cleric you will get both cleric and druid spells. Charm animal is pretty useless, especially once you get it for a spell. In Baldurs Gate 2 it all of its kits are useful and serve different purposes (archer, stalker, beast master). Rangers are good, and their favoured enemy can be helpful if you make a good choice (helps to know what enemies you most likely will have trouble against). So I really don't have much more to say there. I don't think a fighter would ever be worth it, at least not without a dual/multiclass. Thanks! The benefits of being able to get more than 2 points of proficiency in a weapon are reduced in Baldurs Gate 2, so I wouldn't worry about it.

Griff83: So which is best? I know fighter can get 4 stars in a weapon but the others can't, does that have a big effect? I know both Rangers and Paladins get priest spells at a certain level, and Paladins start with lay on hands (useful at low levels) detect evil (pretty useless from what I can make out) and protection from evil (pretty good) and rangers have charm animal (pretty useless) they can all get 18/? for strength.so what are the advantages of each and which would you go for and why?

Baldurs gate 3 ranger