I haven't seen this mentioned much. Maybe it's because Rangers are fairly weak compared to fighters and paladins despite their high stat roll minimums. I always wear plate armor when using a Ranger because I can. All the Ranger kits restrict the Ranger to leather type of armor. If you read the D&D handbook description they seem to be stealthy types. I don't really understand why they are allowed to wear plate armor. It seems Rangers should always wear leather as to be stealthy. The only exception I would make with this rule is if they dual classed to a Cleric. A Ranger wearing plate armor just doesn't seem like a Ranger at all. Without the restriction in place why not use it though? It makes you a far more effective front line fighter in BG1.
With that in mind I find a Ranger using hammers, maces, and flails a bit silly. They are not very stealthy weapons. Every time I try to play a Ranger/Cleric I usually stop. Even with the power of the class I feel stupid as a Ranger dual wielding heavy blunt weapons and wearing plate armor. If I were to play the Ranger it would almost definitely be the archer or the stalker. In the 2nd edition Rangers handbook it appears there are a lot more kits available.
With that in mind I find a Ranger using hammers, maces, and flails a bit silly. They are not very stealthy weapons. Every time I try to play a Ranger/Cleric I usually stop. Even with the power of the class I feel stupid as a Ranger dual wielding heavy blunt weapons and wearing plate armor. If I were to play the Ranger it would almost definitely be the archer or the stalker. In the 2nd edition Rangers handbook it appears there are a lot more kits available.