Eleima Posted March 18, 2007 Share Posted March 18, 2007 In a similar vein, I've always wonder why I couldn't make myself a lil' half-elven monk... Link to comment
Elfen Lied Posted March 18, 2007 Share Posted March 18, 2007 yeh BG doesnt have that much RP value. why shouldnt i be able to be a halfling mage if i want, or a like Eleima said, a half Elf monk. Link to comment
Bri Posted March 18, 2007 Share Posted March 18, 2007 As others have pointed out, the rules AD&D 2nd edition were based on and the basis of Baldurs Gate 1 and 2) are very illogical. *digs through her old texts* The scary thing? The first version of AD&D was even more silly. Monks didn't exist as such, and to be a bard? You first had to level up as a thief, then a fighter, then a mage before you could become considered a bard. Gnomes could only get up to level 8 as an Illusionist, and dwarves were limited to level 10 as a fighter, yet any race could become an unlimited thief... Link to comment
Twani Posted March 18, 2007 Share Posted March 18, 2007 Draconis and Abazigal never really bothered me- I always assumed, even if it's never in the game (mostly for the sake of my own sanity), that Bhaal knew about this prophesy before the Time of Troubles, and went around having kids up to a few hundred years before. This means poor CHARNAME isn't like, ten, and that Bhaal could have had the kids all over- during the Time of Troubles, after all, he was basically a loser with no ability to think stuck in a rather small area. What really bothers me is the Coweled Wizards- they're an underground resistance organization, mostly! And the Shadow Thieves being led by Aran and having their headquarters in the docks district. And Bhaal having his plane on the Abyss (I think I argued with poor Gaider about that one for almost three weeks on the old boards). And, and, and... Okay, I'll stop. I really do love the game, though. It's just the little things. Link to comment
Elfen Lied Posted March 18, 2007 Share Posted March 18, 2007 *digs through her old texts* The scary thing? The first version of AD&D was even more silly. Monks didn't exist as such, and to be a bard? You first had to level up as a thief, then a fighter, then a mage before you could become considered a bard. Gnomes could only get up to level 8 as an Illusionist, and dwarves were limited to level 10 as a fighter, yet any race could become an unlimited thief... guess im lucky i started playing DND after BGII came out, then. Link to comment
berelinde Posted March 19, 2007 Share Posted March 19, 2007 The original D&D had 4 character classes: Fighter, magic user, cleric, and thief. Later, there were some really innovative classes, namely paladins, rangers, and druids, added. Clerics could not be true neutral. Stats were gender-dependent. I am not sure if fighters were allowed to be female. This was 30+ years ago, and I was 9, so I don't remember so well any more. Link to comment
Loké Posted March 19, 2007 Author Share Posted March 19, 2007 Stats were gender-dependent. I am not sure if fighters were allowed to be female. I may or may not be opening a can of worms on this one, but I can see why that would be so-it's physically impossible for women to be as strong as men, as I understand it. ...But hey, since when has something like realism got in the way of D&D? Got to admit, I prefer 3rd ed. rules. Nice and simple, once you get the hang of it. Link to comment
Elfen Lied Posted March 19, 2007 Share Posted March 19, 2007 yeh they are pretty good. although picking a class everytime you level up is kind of annoying if im not going to deviate. if i want a solo classed fighter i have to choose fighter ever time he levels up. Link to comment
berelinde Posted March 19, 2007 Share Posted March 19, 2007 Stats were gender-dependent. I am not sure if fighters were allowed to be female. I may or may not be opening a can of worms on this one, but I can see why that would be so-it's physically impossible for women to be as strong as men, as I understand it. ...But hey, since when has something like realism got in the way of D&D? Got to admit, I prefer 3rd ed. rules. Nice and simple, once you get the hang of it. Oddly enough, I'm not going to bristle at this one. Nor am I going to argue. While I believe that it is possible for a woman to be stronger than most men, she probably won't beat them all. Wrong muscle/bone ratio. In a fantasy world, though, all bets are off. My DM even tried a drow-like campaign for a while, where the females were all stronger/faster/bigger than the males, and limited the boys to 12s in STR, DEX, and CON, but no effects on INT, WIS, and CHR. So, maybe FR females are made differently than Earth females. Doesn't matter. Yeah, I like 3E better, too, although I'm likely committing blasphemy. Link to comment
Eleima Posted March 19, 2007 Share Posted March 19, 2007 I may or may not be opening a can of worms on this one, but I can see why that would be so-it's physically impossible for women to be as strong as men, as I understand it. Oddly enough, I'm not going to bristle at this one. Nor am I going to argue. While I believe that it is possible for a woman to be stronger than most men, she probably won't beat them all. Wrong muscle/bone ratio. I'm not going to argue on this one! While some females are stronger than some men, I still think that whatever some people may say, there are more men who are stronger than women than the other way around. Ick, that sentence's kinda convoluted. Well, anyway, my point is that we all come in different shapes, sizes, strength, dexterity, constitution, intelligence, wisdom, charisma, etc... but I still believe that there is a general tendency. Still, I'm glad that the FR campaign used in BG allows the PC some latitude in that regard. I want to be able to have a muscular paladin if I want to! Link to comment
Domi Posted March 19, 2007 Share Posted March 19, 2007 Yeah, I like 3E better, too, although I'm likely committing blasphemy. In general I like 3Ed better, but sometimes I think it's too complex for its own good. Like when I am confronted with a screen in NWN2 showing 40 or so feats to allocate my one precious point.... Link to comment
Eleima Posted March 19, 2007 Share Posted March 19, 2007 In general I like 3Ed better, but sometimes I think it's too complex for its own good. Like when I am confronted with a screen in NWN2 showing 40 or so feats to allocate my one precious point.... Ack!! The agony!! The dilemma!! What an inner conflict!! What a conundrum!! I hate that moment... Link to comment
Elfen Lied Posted March 19, 2007 Share Posted March 19, 2007 at first i didnt really like how some of the feats like two weapon fighting, i like how in BGII that was a proficency. but after awhile i got used to it. Link to comment
Loké Posted March 22, 2007 Author Share Posted March 22, 2007 That was the only real problem I had with the 3rd ed rules-getting the whole 'Feats' idea around my head. Took me a while to realise they weren't feats proper, just abilities. Link to comment
Miloch Posted March 22, 2007 Share Posted March 22, 2007 In general I like 3Ed better, but sometimes I think it's too complex for its own good. Like when I am confronted with a screen in NWN2 showing 40 or so feats to allocate my one precious point....Yeah, Baldur's Gate "Dark Alliance" I & II (for consoles) use the same interface. Hey... maybe someone should port those to PC/Mac? (heh, right) Not sure 3e is a great improvement over 2e - not that a bunch of things in 2e didn't need fixing. But yeah, you can be a moon elf necromancer in 3e if you want, and you can also run around wearing platemail with low strength, casting spells without penalty if you put the points in it. So, hooray! We've exchanged a bunch of silliness for a bunch of other silliness . Link to comment
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.