AD&D (2E) rears its ugly head...

Remove all ads!

I have been playing a LOT of BG 2 again lately. This is such a great game in so many respects that I am usually able to ignore all of the "WTF?" rules/mechanics of OD&D/AD&D such as the nonsensical 'save throws', thieves being worse fighters than clerics, "fire & forget" spell system, etc.. Most of this stuff we cannot do a damn thing about as it is part of the 'engine'(literally and figuratively) but am I wrong in thinking that a modder(or even just a simpleton like me who makes an effort to learn a few things about WeiDU and such) should be able to fix some of the following issues with classes/kits and races in BG2?

*Shouldn't some kits 'overlap' in regards to what 'class' they belong to? Specifically, shouldn't there be "Archer" kits for fighters(as well as Rangers) and "Berserker" kits for Barbarians(if D&D insists on calling Barbarians a "Class" rather than the more appropriate "race". Barbarians have many "classes" they can belong to as a race/culture such as "Shaman", "Fighter", "Skald", "Ranger"(think 'scout'/hunter etc.)? That Rangers cannot be "Bounty Hunters" seems to be far beyond a gross oversight! Making BH's a "Thief" kit is flat out STUPID and makes no sense!

* What happened to Jesters?!? Remember the old AD&D article by Roger Moore(appears in Best of Dragon Vol IV)? The original AD&D 2E that was proposed in the early 1980's was much closer to 3E than what they eventually released and featured the Jester as a Bard sub-class with most of his advantages/disad's in tact(Acrobatic AC bonuses, catch and 'return' thrown missiles, initiative bonuses etc.) but all versions of the Jester as a "kit" that have appeared since the official AD&D 2E hit(including BG2) have him as a watered down, plain old bard that confuses enemies with his "song"(rather than charming or 'lullaby-ing')!?

*Why does evil get the shaft so much? It is completely IMPOSSIBLE to have an evil party(unless you like parties of 4 PCs or less). You are forced to include a few "neutrals" and ALL of those neutrals are really "good"(regardless of what the stupid alignment tab says).
At least in BG1 you COULD have an entirely evil party(and that was even while having kicked out the likes of Xzarn, Montaron, that evil bard, etc.)!

*Even though the alignment crap is messed up, all races in BG 2 are at least represented by at least one recruitable NPC,...all EXCEPT Half-Orcs(*sigh)! Okay maybe I am asking too much to see some non-standard Orcs, Half-ogres and such as PC races(but I doubt it!) but the LEAST the designers could have done was to whip up a single half-orc(evil) Fighter-Thief or Fighter-Cleric NPC for us!

*Why in the name of GYGAX can elves NOT be Bards but CAN be Barbarians?!? Hell even in BG 2 ITSELF elves are described as being comely, eloquent and having "melodic voices"(and this is ignoring the rich history of elvish bards in fantasy)!


I guess I DO have a question or two lurking in that rant. Is it possible to modify 'official'/existing kits(i.e. Jesters) to be more appropriate or would one simply have to create a new kit and call it something like the "Clown"(*Cringe)? I have seen the new Fighter/Ranger/Paladin and Bard(Acrobats) kits and they are pretty decent(though not anything I am interested in)BTW.
Has anyone else had similar concerns about Half-Orcs and evil NPCs in general(and before someone mentions it, no, I am not in the least interested in any Drow Romance-bantering, fighter-mages of any kind. Drow grew tired when Drizt became the posterboy and I absolutely HATE the romance aspect of BG2)

[ March 18, 2005, 11:38: Message edited by: Taluntain ]

 

Hmm, too many questions in that post for me.

I will focus on one aspect: kits. As far as I can tell from the work that other people have done, you can pretty much do what ever you want with a kit. Feel free to make whatever cool kit you think would work.

On a wider note, the whole concept of kits is a little restrictive in itself and is made redundant under 3e rules. The expanded concept of feats, skills, and fewer multi-classing restrictions mean that you can effectively create the ‘kit’ you want as the character develops. Want a rogue archer? Give him 4 levels of Fighter, weapon specialisation in long bows, the Rapid Shot and Point Blank feats and you’re on your way.

 

First: There is a Fighter Archer kit. I think it's in the ease-of-use mod, but I'm not really sure. At any rate, it's one of the more common mods. Also, several modders have made new/modified kits. Check out the mod list at http://modlist.pocketplane.net/

Second: There are quite a few mods with evil npcs. Again, I point you to that mod list. I don't know about any half-orcs, evil or otherwise, but there should still be plenty.

 

There's a joinable half-orc in Neverending Journey (a partial conversion mod bringing much of Icewind Dale into the BG2 plot), but he's Lawful Good.

 

Not all barbarians are Barbarians, if you get my drift. You can belong to a barbarian tribe and not be of the Barbarian class. I don't see your point as being a particular problem.

Do you have a link to this article? Revamps of existing kits are one of the things we have in mind for future versions of the Song and Silence mod at Gibberlings 3.

I too prefer 3E's less restrictive views on race and class... However I don't see Elves being Barbarians a problem, given that that's what large numbers of Wild Elves are.

Yes.

 

About evil: The whole reputation system goes against playing evil. And for certain quests, your reward is smaller for finishing it the evil way. I don't really like this too, but I have no qualms with it either. Last thing we want is parents saying this game is too violent or promotes criminal behaviour. Blah.

The evil NPC's are perhaps arguably better than good ones though. Best cleric, best mage, fighters that get grand mastery. I don't get why Haerdalis isn't more evil - he is half demon.

About romances: I'm sure there are other people that hate them too, but I'm not one of those. It adds some extra depth and character to some of the NPCs, and a lot more interaction between party members. I think it was a nice touch, although waiting for the romance to progress can be irritating at times.

About AD&D 2E rules: If you thought elves not being bards is bad, you should have tried the old gold box AD&D games where Dwarf, Halfling, and Gnome could only be fighter, thief, or fighter/thief. AND there were level restrictions based on race, like max fighter level is 9 or something. THAT was severely limiting. When I got BG2, I was thrilled to see all those racial limitations removed because it made playing those races actually feasible. I guess your standards are higher than mine.

 

Isn't that the jongleur, not the jester?

 

@Andyr

Actually, that is my POINT. "Barbarian" is not a "class" at all(which is why many barbarians would NOT belong to the AD&D barbarian "class"). AD&D based the idea almost 100% on the popular Hollywood image of Arnold Shwarzzenegger as Conan and hence barbarians became a type of warrior that was so full of muscle he could not wear plate mail because it did not show off his pec's and abs.
Really though "barbarian" is a cultural distinction. Theoretically there can and should be barbarian elves(ala Pini's Elfquest, humans, dwarves etc.. Barbarians are to hyumans(for example) as "wild elves" are to "elves". Within a barbarian culture/race there will be many "classes"(as D&D employs the term) such as clerics/shamans, fighters, hunters/rangers, barserkers, ...even bards/skalds and fools/jesters.

This is all nitpicky on my part anyway but it just strikes me as weird. Conan himself was a fighter/rogue. Same can be said of Fafhrd.

Sadly, finding such old Dragon magazine articles on the net is next to impossible for whatever reason. WotC had said there are copywrite issues involved with posting Dragon mag' material prior to a particular issue(like two hundred and something or other) but I can quote much of the article from memory if that helps. Your best bet would be to track down Best of Dragon Vol. IV via Ebay though.

Agreed. My contention was not so much with elves being barbarians as it was with the notion that they could NOT be bards. It seems to me if soemone were sitting around thinking of rationalizations to disallow certain race/class combinations then elvish barbarians(taking into account AD&D's "class-based" view of barb's as "musclebound warriors") would have been way ahead of evish bards on that list.

I figured as much and after finally downloading and installing Song and Silence this was confirmed.


@Blog

Yeah I get you as far as the fear of parental censorship camp[aigns go but I do not see why the reputation system had to favor either good or evil. Why didn't they simply enable "negative reputation" wherein someone with, say -23 rep' would get discounts at stores, not for being idolized but for being feared.
In any case, if they did not want to allow "evil" PCs then they should just have not allowed it. Craft the stroy so that such a thing is not even feasible or whatever but if you ARE going to allow it then toss us a friggin' bone here! at least take the time out to create 5 or 6 freaking NPCs we can recruit!?!

It is, as you said, arguable though. IS Korgan better than Keldorn? A <charname> dwarf berserker will be far and away better than Korgan if for no other reason than being able to use the Azuredge(assuming he is "good"). Is Viccy' the best Cleric? I could easily argue four ways that this is not necessarily so(I would even be tempted to advocate for Arie just for sh*ts and grins).

Well, this is just a personal preference on my part and I don't care enough to say they shouldn't be included. I am just not one of those people who enjoys reading a ton of text in general in a computer game and being FORCED to read through and click certain responses for 15 minutes because I don't want character 'X' to leave the group just before I am about to fight Kangaxx or something is crap.

I know. I started playing D&D adn RPGS in general around 1980-81 or so and the Goldbox CRPGs like Hillsfar when they first came out. BElieve me, NO ONE is more appreciative of the strides made from the days of OD&D to D&D 3.5 but what bugs me is that other game systems had recognised adn addressed these sorts of errors in design as early as 1977 and TSR was well aware of it back then. The only reason D&D 3E did not come out back in the mid 1980's was for fear of losing their fan base whom, at least in small part, knew all they knew of fantasy threw D&D adn had embarked on a letter writing campaign threatening boycotts if any changes were made to the system(for the most part).
I suspect that by the time D&D 4E rolls out, the "fire and forget" magic system adn many other nonsensical antiquities will be phased out and most people will not have much of a problem with it once they get over their unfamiliarity.

Shame this couldn't have occured 30 years ago.


@Klorox


I am not sure what a "jonguleur" is but no need to split hairs in any case. Jesters, as a kit, would be made much more attractive and without incurring any play-balance issues simply by giving them traits in accordance with their characterization in popular fantasy fiction. They are clowns, acrobats, jugglers, and comics who wear outrageous clothing and display peculiar mannerisms. Therefore, besides the ability to taunt and confuse enemies through wit and insult, tehy should have a knack for thrown missiles(and catching said missiles), an AC bonus similar to monks(though not as good I imagine) and a selection of spells geared towards buffoonery and prankery(i.e. Grease, invisibilty etc.). Disadvantages would stem from the fact that even human jesters tend towards, as an occupational qualification, short stature and undisciplined nature. Armor better than studded leather would be right out. Most two-handed weapons also a no-go. Very limited selelction of spells etc.

[ March 19, 2005, 17:41: Message edited by: RuneQuester ]

 

Some thoughts from the gamer's point of view.

This is not necessarily true. It is only by playing evil that one can recover the Silver Pantaloons, the Blackrazor, the Nymph's Cloak, the incredibly overpowered Imp familiar, etc.
There are also some items only evil characters can use, like Neb's Nasty Cutter and the Unholy Reaver. Although not your average Carsomyr, the Unholy Reaver is only too overpowered when used properly.

Jesters retain all the strengths of the Bard Class in the game. Their song is useless only at first glance. A high level Jester's Song is easily worth foregoing the Enhanced Bard Song.
About how Jesters were implemented, I think it's because the game's engine was a bit too limited, and time was against the developers' side. I guess it would be nice if the Jesters, among other classes, were more in tune with their game description or original AD&D concept. For my part, I don't understand why the Jack-of-All-Trades, the class where fools belong to, and the class who deserves UAI more than thieves cannot cast Nahal's Reckless Dweomer. Game Balance?
I think the developers were well aware that sooner or later some intrepid gamer will cry out on the subject of AD&D(2E) and game implementation and that's why the game is very moddable. So it might calm you to know that are already a handful of sites out there with people who are working on making your ideas a reality. You can try asking around - many of the ere'mentioned modders lurk these boards.

[ March 19, 2005, 19:48: Message edited by: Scythesong Immortal ]

 

Dude, if you search for any realism in a cRPG where you operate on Hitpoints you may as well... I don't know.

EVERY cRPG is unrealistic, and badly. It's either accept it of forget it(And play UT2004 ).

 

@Koki:


Not necessarily true but even if it were true, to whatever degree, that EVERY cRPG is unrealistic, this does not mean that you simply throw your hands up and ignore the mnost glaring and inexplicable errors in otherwise good games like BG/2. That is like saying "ALL third person shooters have unrealistic weaponry so we should ignore the bug in shooter 'X' that allows you to shoot unlimited rounds without reloading.".

As a gamer I don't dwell on relatively minor inconsistencies or unrealistic mechanisms. I do not want to play a game where infection of wounds and such is your big worry and where you have to spend a few weeks ina proper hospital to overcome a gunshot wound. For the sake of the game I accept that these less interesting and less fun elements are glossed over.
What I DO want in a fantasy game however is for archtypes to be accurate when there is no reason for them not to be. It is not an anguishing cry for "realism" so much as it is pointing out unecessary or unwarranted inconsistency.

@Scythesong:

Gotcha. BTW, i was not compalining that the jester's 'song' was useless. I was just pointing out that BG2 jesters are pretty much just plain bards with a relatively minor change to how their 'song' works. It is akin to creating a Stalker kit for rangers wherein the only difference between stalkers and generic rangers is that the latter wear green or something.
As for the rest...I hear ya'.

 

No, he's not.

Being a tiefling means he has some amount of Evil-Outsider ancestry: this is probably less than half, and could only be 1/8 or less. I don't think he ever says. Similarly, I don't think he ever says what type of creature (Demon, Devil, Yugoloth or other Evil outsider/deity) he is descended from...

Tieflings do not necessarily have to be Evil alignment because they are descended from Evil outsiders, either.

 

My major complaint about the good / evil thing is more flavor based, specifically that every evil character you meet is insufferably rude. No, I'm serious. Isn't there anyone in the Forgotten Realms who is evil but capable of holding a mostly-normal conversation? Sarevok is the evil character in Baldur's Gate who I find the least rude, but most of them can't do anything without trash-talking you.

People in the real world like to talk about how mundane evil can be, (stories about the Devil invariably portray the Prince of Darkness as an ordinary-looking charismatic manipulator) but this notion seems to be unknown in Dungeons and Dragons. Don't get me wrong, it's not like it messes up the game for me or anything, but I find it moderately annoying.

 

In BG1, Kagain wasn't too rude, and Eldoth seemed slimy but civil. But yeh, in BG2 most of them are pretty obnoxious.

 

Actually, if we're going back to BG1, I seem to remember that Xzar was okay most of the time. But most likely I'm just a sucker for anyone who tells me my voice is ambrosia.

 

The "Wrath of the Drow" mod (which will shortly be getting a forum over at RPGD) will resolve some of the problems with playing an evil character. Please feel free to go and make suggestions.

 

Getting back to the Jester class, the only thing that may be difficult to implement there would be the catch and throw back missiles. Yes, there is an item that does this (reflection shield) but I'm under the impression that has a 100% chance of success.

I'd have to relook at the rules, but I don't think that Jesters do that automatically, do they? Like they can't be in the middle of casting a spell, grab an arrow out of the air, and throw it back, can they? It would seem a bit complicated. Almost like you'd have to activate a button like a thief does to detect traps, and you wouldn't be able to do anything else besides walk around when you were in "grab missile" mode. Other than that, such a kit should be able to be implemented.