BG Fighter to BG2 Monk?

Remove all ads!

I bought and played through BG2:SoA fairly recently as a fighter and a pally, so I decided to go back and buy the original BG. It was my intention to go through as a monk this time, then import him to BG2 when I finished ToSC. I was of course disappointed to learn that you cant be a monk in BG. I have heard that during the import process to BG2, you can switch kits on your char. Can I go through BG and ToSC as a fighter, then switch him to a monk for BG2:SoA?

 

No you can't. This is because that BG SoA is a mix of AD&D and D&D 3rd edition rules. I mean that core rules are form AD&D but there are some addons from 3rd edition like new classes and some special abilities. If you want to play a monk you must start a SoA with a new character.

 

Pewp.... I dont feel like playing through SoA again. Guess I'll just start a new monk for ToB (Got that today!)

 

But you could play through BG1 with a fighter, then (when you reach SoA) change him to a monk with ShadowKeeper.
This is not cheating from the roleplaying perspective. Just pretend that your character was a monk all the time.

 

Or better yet, I could pretend that I found enlightenment and decided weapons were for pansies.

 

Misiek, just on your post, you are actually incorrect in your comment that BG2:SoA is based on 3rd ed AD&D rules. It is not. Monk, Sorceror and Barbarian, existed under 2nd ed AD&D they were actually kits, of fighter, mage, and fighter respectively. Interplay, Black Isle and TSR(now Wizards), for some reason classfied them as their own classes in BG2:SoA, but all rules, classes etc, in BG2:SoA are only based on 2nd ed. It is the expansion pack(BG2:ToB) that uses a combination of 2nd ed and 3rd ed rules mainly to do with the special abilities that the fighter, paladin, ranger, thief, and bard get.

 

Maybe you're right. Could you post where i can find the description of these kits, i mean some handbook based on AD&D rules, beacause i've read a couple of them and haven't found that kits being described, maybe i've missed something...

 

BG2 has 3rd edition classes in 2nd edition so it's a mix of 3rd and 2nd edition,that's why we can't choose monk,barbarian or sorcerer in BG 1.

 

Khelben read my post above!

Monk, Barbarian and Sorceror in BG2 are not AD&D 3rd ed classes, they are AD&D 2nd ed kits, and a kit is not a class, but basically a sub-class. Black Isle, Interplay and TSR now Wizards, for some reason or other made them classes.

It's as simple as that. Only ToB uses some 3rd ed rules, but SoA does not at all!

NB: The Wild Mage class is also a kit I believe not a class, yet classified as a class, againb to me for unknown reasons.

Misiek:
I'll have a look around and see what I can find on those kits, but they did exist, Sorceror being a Mage kit, Barbarian being a Fighter kit, and Monk also being a Fighter kit. The reason you would have trouble finding any information on these kits, is due to what happened in kits under 2nd ed AD&D. With TSR, there ended up becoming waaaaayyyy too many kits, and all the kits for different classes started to get out of hand. They ended up killing all the kits off, and then re-did some of the kits. Whether they redid Monk I'd have to look into, but there used to be handbooks like" "The Gnome and Halfling Handbook" This book in question had different sort of kits of Fighter, Mage, Cleric and a couple of others. There was one kit called a Halfling Cartographer or something odd. There was also in the fighters kit book, I believe a kit called an Amazon, which you could only have a female pc as. Even the ranger wasn't a class in 2nd ed it was also a kit, it was a fighter kit, I believe.

A good source offhand to look at just on kits, and it's by no means full proof I don't think, I'm not sure, but TeamBG's The Darkest Day's page, of Kits lists all the possible kits you can give your protagonist, and under that, they have lifted a lot of the old 2nd ed AD&D kits of the four or five main AD&D 2nd ed classes that ended up existing.

 

Thnx for the information, i'll look for the inforamtion about this kits, nevertheless i'm a little bit suprised that this classes really existed in AD&D Thanks anyway

 

1) Have Misiek and Khelben really said anything incorrect?
Monk and others are kits in 2nd ED, but classes in 3rd ED. BG2 is 2nd ED, but these are classes. And you have just said that a kit is not a class. Ain't it obvious that it's a mix of 3rd and 2nd edition?

2)What makes you say that Wild Mage is a class in BG2? It is not listed amongst classes, but in Mage specialist list. This would make it more of a kit.

3) What are you talking about, 1st ED? Ranger is not a fighter kit!
The first sentence of Ranger's Handbook (2nd ED) is:
"The ranger is one of the most popular character classes in the AD&D® game."
PHB for 2nd ED has this table:
Warrior Wizard Priest Rogue
Fighter Mage Cleric Thief
Ranger Illusionist Druid Bard
Paladin Other Other

Barbarian is a Fighter kit. There is Monk, but as a Cleric kit. There is no Sorcerer at all.
Am I missing something?

 

Well, I'm going to get told off by the moderators again, for crossposting, and mentioning the SoA sequel, cos it's the only way I'm going to prove my point, and shut you guys up on the issue.

I could only give partial information and not the full story without mentioning ToB, but I am going to have to mention it to set the record straight

Zvijer, you are 100% and dead wrong!!!

Your point 1) Yes they have said incorrect things and also correct things. But BG2:SoA is soley and 100% 2nd ed AD&D with no and I stress no, 3rd ed AD&D rules anywhere withing BG2:SoA. As for BG2:ToB, that uses some 3rd ed AD&D feats, that may also have existed under 2nd ed AD&D but called something else. Examples: Wgirlwind Attack, Greater Whirlwind Attack, etc. And some of the feats and pool abilities mentioned in the BG2:ToB book, aren't all feats, things like smite, that's almost a standard 2nd ed/3rd ed etc ability, not a feat not a high level clas ability, just simply something that Paladins more than any other class has been able to do in AD&D for a long time.

And no it is not obvious that BG2:SoA is a mix of 2nd ed and 3rd ed. BG2:ToB is a mixture, there is a difference, they can be two totally separate games for a start, cos you don't have to play through SoA to do ToB, but you do need SoA installed.

The classes mentioned in BG2:SoA, specifically, barbarian, monk and sorceror, as I have already outlined, these are infact kits, but they were classified and coded as classes, but they are still kits. I have stressed before I do not know the reasoning for why Interplay/Black Isle did this, but my hunch is, if you had Sorceror as a type of Mage, which it was in 2nd ed AD&D, they would have had too much extra coding to do, when people imported their general mage across to BG2 from BG1 and wanted to go Sorceror. Too much coding to do that. Same applies but not to the same extent of the Barbarian and Monk classes in BG2:SoA.

Now, if Sorceror, Monk, and Barbarian were "truly" classes on their own in BG2:SoA, they should have had separate strong holds. Why ? Because, they were set up as classes, and each class apart from these 3 classes have their own stronghold. Fighter, Ranger, Mage, Cleric, Paladin, Bard, Druid, Thief. So again they should have had separate strongholds, ie Barbarian and Monk should not get D'Arnise and Sorceror should not get Planar Sphere by rights. But they got those strongholds, which underlines the fact they are indeed 2nd ed AD&D kits, but were coded into BG2:SoA as classes.

Your point 2) I mentioned Wild Mage briefly, only because a) discussions on Wild Mage I try not to make in this forum, because they are not part of SoA unless you have ToB installed; and b) Should be mentioned in the BG2:ToB forum. I did specifically say in my precious post when referring to Wild Mage that it is indeed a kit not a class. Also on the Wild Mage, they are given Planar Sphere as they should be, because they are a mage kit, or mage specialist if you prefer, or a type of mage. Take your pick.

Your point 3) You just proved my point. As I pointed out there were 4 main classes in 2nd ed AD&D. Warrior, Rogue, Wizard, Priest.

2nd ed AD&D went through several versions of kits and classes. Every man and his dog ended up coming up with different kits, TSR ended up ruling there were too MANY kits and classes, and changed 2nd ed at least once I'm sure, and went back to Warrior, Rogue, Priest, Wizard, and all other kits/classes got based off these. Warrior was a family if you'd like to call it of classes, etc. Sorceror existed under 2nd ed. I was not 100% certain of Monk, but I would believe Monk was more likely played and used as part of the Warrior family and Priest Family, else in BG2:SoA they would of given the Monk one of the temples which would of been a bit hard, unless they made a separate and new stronghold for them, a Monastry perhaps ? Not to mention Monks would not be using a temple of talos, helm or lathander.

At one stage there were almost 100 kits and classes in 2nd ed , which is why they revamped 2nd ed a couple of times. Also, why they released books like the following that I have: "The Complete Paladin's Handbook (2nd edition player's handbook rules supplement)" and "The Complete Book of Elves (2nd edition player's handbook rules supplement)". In both of these handbooks, and note they are supplements, and by definition anything that is a supplement when it comes to AD&D specifically, is not neccessarily a kit, but is not a "core class", there are 15 kits for the Paladin alone. The elves handbook, is one of the supplements that got released like the paladins, and "the gnome and halflings handbook" (which I think I have somewhere), has 7 kit families, and within those 7 kit families, there are 12 kits. I mentioned also in a previous post, about the "Gnome and Halfling Handbook", the majority if not all of the demi-human races, (and maybe also the human handbook, which I only had a few handbooks, I didnt have that one if they made one why would they make one I have no idea), had supplement books, and in those supplement books had a variety of kits. which were all part of the four core families: Fighter/Warrior, Wizard/Mage, Priest/Cleric, and Rogue/Thief. As like 3rd ed AD&D, 2nd ed AD&D had not just TSR, and now Wizards writing all their different core books and supplement books, they had differnet people and different companies writing them. If you look at what are basically supplement handbooks for 3rd ed AD&D, mainly the prestige class books, example: Sword and Fist, not all of these "prestige class" supplements were written by the same author or even the same company, just look at the formatting, it's all over the place from book to book, there is no structure.

Zvijer yes you are missing something, my whole point of my previous post.

BG2:SoA is purely 2nd ed AD&D rules, classes and kits; BG2:ToB add on, and not BG2:SoA+ToB, just what is in ToB is a mix of 2nd ed and 3rd ed.

The thing people need to think about is who made and wrote BG1 and BG1:TotSC; BG2:SoA and BG2:ToB, and when they were released and what versions of 2nd ed and 3rd ed AD&D existed:

Who made them ?
BG1 series - TSR, Black Isle, Interplay, and BioWare Corp
BG2:SoA - Wizards of the Coast, Black Isle, Interplay, and BioWare Corp
BG2:ToB - Wizards of the Coast, Black Isle, Interplay, and BioWare Corp

What versions of AD&D existed?
BG1 series - Only 2nd ed
BG2:SoA - I don't believe 3rd ed was officially released, and they were still writing and rewriting it.
BG2:ToB - came out just before 3rd ed was officially released.

As an aside Pools of Radiance: Return to Myth Drannor(title?) was mentioned as basically Wizards first attempt at TRUE 3rd ed AD&D rules.

History note: Hasbro bought out MicroProse and Parker Brothers; Wizards of the Coast bought out Hasbro and TSR. Wizards may have bought MicroProse and not Hasbro. But Wizards basically bought out a lot of companies all at once, because when Hasbro took over a few, they didn't have the companies for long, before Wizards bought them and their subsidiaries out.

Not to mention BG2:ToB was used as a testing ground for future games at the time like Pools of Radiance, which were to be completely 3rd ed rules.

Where I believe people think Sorceror, Monk and Barbarian in BG2:SoA is to do with AD&D 3rd ed is due to they are complete classes of their own in 3rd ed AD&D and not kits. But people must understand, you really can not equate 2nd ed AD&D with 3rd ed AD&D.

The Sorceror, Monk and Barbarian as they are written in 3rd ed AD&D don't come close to corresponding to the BG2 classes, the closest is that of the Sorceror, which may well be the only 3rd ed class they have used in BG2. Frankly and in my honest opinion, I think the Sorceror is a munchkin char to play when you give him specific stats, but that's just my opinion.

Hopefully, I've striaghtened things out, but people really need to stop confusing their 3rd ed with their 2nd ed AD&D rules and kits and classes, etc etc etc. They are different editions of AD&D, it is as simple as that.

In final and to wrap up, I humbly apologise to the moderators for having to mention different games and the add on for SoA, and mention so many off topic things, but I believe everything I had to mention had to be mentioned this time. Again my apologies.

 

There was actually a "complete Barbarian's handbook" for the 2nd ED. So they were in 2nd ed.

According to the DM's option: High level campaigns, the fighter has only 2 high level (level 20+) abilities:

Breech Immunity
Intimidation

But they have a couple of high level abilities that do not require him/her to achieve level 20, such as:

Adapdation
All round attack
Deathblow

And a couple of others I'm lazy to list, so basically, most fighter high level abilities in ToB are mostly a 3rd ed "thing" (for lack of a better word), like what was said above.

 

You really confuse me with your terminology - first you insist that a kit is not a class, then you say Ranger is Fighter kit. A better term would be Ranger is Warrior subclass (as are Fighter and Paladin).

About Sorc, Monk and Barb being from 3rd ed, you made two smashing arguments:
- they do not have their respective strongholds;
- 3rd ed wasn't out officially
released when SoA was (which I didn't knew).
So you are right.

You said:
"NB: The Wild Mage class is also a kit I believe not a class, yet classified as a class, againb to me for unknown reasons."
In the game, Wild Mage is under Mage class - so it is a kit or type, hardly a class. Or it would be if the ToB manual didn't state this:
"A new [b[class[/b] is available to the player in character creation. This class is the Wild Mage."
What to say? Even they didn't know what Wild Mage is.