Baldur's Gate Baldur's Gate 3 Early Access Thread [GAME RELEASED, GO TO NEW THREAD]

[MerchantKing]

How was it actually explained in 2e that only humans could be paladins?

Why would a Gnome want to be an inferior class when they had access to the superior Fighter/Illusionist?

 

[notpl]

How was it actually explained in 2e that only humans could be paladins?

Why would a Gnome want to be an inferior class when they had access to the superior Fighter/Illusionist?

...Excuse me?

 

[Nortar]

How was it actually explained in 2e that only humans could be paladins?

I found no explanation in AD&D 2ed PHB I have, but it's like asking why only dwarf could be a dwarf.
The paladin used to be a model human. The human.

Other races could dual-class though.
The next best (or even better) thing to paladin would be fihter/cleric.

 

[Oreshnik Missile]

Is this any good? Just had a non-retard, non-normie tell me they enjoy it.

 

[Reinhardt]

was it necessary to create new codex account to be same one trick pony?

 

[Delterius]

How was it actually explained in 2e that only humans could be paladins?

going by baldur's gate 2e was rather arbitrary. do we need an explanation why elves can't be fighter/druids but half/elves can?

 

[Cyberarmy]

was it necessary to create new codex account to be same one trick pony?

I miss @anuspounder ...

 

[Delterius]

How was it actually explained in 2e that only humans could be paladins?

I found no explanation in AD&D 2ed PHB I have, but it's like asking why only dwarf could be a dwarf.

even better, why can a half elf be a fighter/druid but an elf can't?

race uniqueness was somewhat arbitrary, at least going by how bg dealt with things

 

[La vie sexuelle]

How was it actually explained in 2e that only humans could be paladins?

I found no explanation in AD&D 2ed PHB I have, but it's like asking why only dwarf could be a dwarf.

even better, why can a half elf be a fighter/druid but an elf can't?

race uniqueness was somewhat arbitrary, at least going by how bg dealt with things

Games are arbitrary by their nature. Different buffs, debuffs and limitations are reasons for experimentation. Without that you get something bland like Pathfinder. "Oh golly! Now I can make druid-mage dwarf!" quickly lost its charm.

 

[Delterius]

How was it actually explained in 2e that only humans could be paladins?

I found no explanation in AD&D 2ed PHB I have, but it's like asking why only dwarf could be a dwarf.

even better, why can a half elf be a fighter/druid but an elf can't?

race uniqueness was somewhat arbitrary, at least going by how bg dealt with things

Games are arbitrary by their nature. Different buffs, debuffs and limitations are reasons for experimentation. Without that you get something bland like Pathfinder. "Oh golly! Now I can make druid-mage dwarf!" quickly lost its charm.

I don't totally agree. Games are reasoned by nature. Designers decide the strengths and limitations of every aspect of their worlds, as to create an experience that rises above sandboxy make believe. Wether the game feels arbitrary or not is a factor of novelty multiplied by the quality of that reasoning.

To someone who's only known a given version of D&D then humans being the only paladins comes across as natural as a matter of fact, in the archetypical 'humans can be anything' sense or in the 'well, thats what paladins are, holy human knights'. To someone else who's familiar with a given version of a D&D setting, then there could be an in-universe reasoning for why only humans can be paladins. There's also a third reasoning that arises purely from rules design, similar to how meta-humans can multi-class while humans can dual-class. But none of these instances are actually arbitrary.

Even when decisions start on a whim in a campaign run in Lake Geneva, then the guy in charge will ground that decision with some reasoning. 'Why clerics can't use bladed weapons? I dunno man I just went to the public library and got myself a crusades comic to read so uh it's because they are holy and generally refuse to draw blood ok'.

I say this because there's a horde of dumbasses online who will demand rules changes on account of 'player agency'. So drawing a line between arbitrary, poorly formulated choices and well reasoned ones is important.

 

[Infinitron]

Still traumatized by the D:OS 2 launch day power outage: https://rpgcodex.net/forums/threads...-go-to-new-thread.111044/page-71#post-5297770

 

[Ryzer]

754 pages for a game that supposedly no codexer awaits. Quite an impressive feat.
Larian has some bright looking years ahead.

 

[MerchantKing]

754 pages for a game that supposedly no codexer awaits. Quite an impressive feat.
Larian has some bright looking years ahead.

If we were looking forward to this game, we wouldn't be posting about it.

 

[La vie sexuelle]

How was it actually explained in 2e that only humans could be paladins?

I found no explanation in AD&D 2ed PHB I have, but it's like asking why only dwarf could be a dwarf.

even better, why can a half elf be a fighter/druid but an elf can't?

race uniqueness was somewhat arbitrary, at least going by how bg dealt with things

Games are arbitrary by their nature. Different buffs, debuffs and limitations are reasons for experimentation. Without that you get something bland like Pathfinder. "Oh golly! Now I can make druid-mage dwarf!" quickly lost its charm.

I don't totally agree. Games are reasoned by nature. Designers decide the strengths and limitations of every aspect of their worlds, as to create an experience that rises above sandboxy make believe. Wether the game feels arbitrary or not is a factor of novelty multiplied by the quality of that reasoning.

To someone who's only known a given version of D&D then humans being the only paladins comes across as natural as a matter of fact, in the archetypical 'humans can be anything' sense or in the 'well, thats what paladins are, holy human knights'. To someone else who's familiar with a given version of a D&D setting, then there could be an in-universe reasoning for why only humans can be paladins. There's also a third reasoning that arises purely from rules design, similar to how meta-humans can multi-class while humans can dual-class. But none of these instances are actually arbitrary.

Art is rooted in life. Art without life is mere abstract, yes. But art, games especially, always have an abstract aspect and in games this aspect is limited by pleasure that the players got. What give pleasure to the players? Well, that's arbitral, just I wrote

Even when decisions start on a whim in a campaign run in Lake Geneva, then the guy in charge will ground that decision with some reasoning. 'Why clerics can't use bladed weapons? I dunno man I just went to the public library and got myself a crusades comic to read so uh it's because they are holy and generally refuse to draw blood ok'.

I say this because there's a horde of dumbasses online who will demand rules changes on account of 'player agency'. So drawing a line between arbitrary, poorly formulated choices and well reasoned ones is important.

All this example is completely wrong. Gygax was history buff and hardcore Christian before he created D&D. He made clerics this way because he knows how they were presented in culture, like Turpin from "La Chanson de Roland" or even Brother Tuck from Robin Hood.

 

[Delterius]

Art is rooted in life.

All this example is completely wrong. Gygax was history buff and hardcore Christian before he created D&D.

You've proved my point. No I don't remember the exact inspirations for every single thing in D&D. But wether Gygax and co based their decisions on Conan or Robin Hood, then the decision was not arbitrary. It was reasoned. And it was based on the designer's lives. Basing clerics off of Friar Tuck, a character they read about in childhood, is as far away from arbitrary as you can go.

 

[Zed Duke of Banville]

All this example is completely wrong. Gygax was history buff and hardcore Christian before he created D&D. He made clerics this way because he knows how they were presented in culture, like Turpin from "La Chanson de Roland" or even Brother Tuck from Robin Hood.

The cleric class originated in Dave Arneson's Blackmoor campaign, as a counterweight to the player-controlled villainous vampire Sir Fang, although it seems the prohibition against edged/piercing weapons came from Gary Gygax's interpretation of the class. See Bishop Carr - First D&D Cleric.

 

[Fedora Master]

754 pages for a game that supposedly no codexer awaits. Quite an impressive feat.
Larian has some bright looking years ahead.

Oh we're all waiting
Waiting to see how shit it'll be

 

[Delterius]

villainous vampire Sir Fang

reminds me of my favorite boss from world of warcraft

 

[Kem0sabe]

754 pages for a game that supposedly no codexer awaits. Quite an impressive feat.
Larian has some bright looking years ahead.

I guarantee you that it will win the codex goty.

 

[Tyranicon]

754 pages for a game that supposedly no codexer awaits. Quite an impressive feat.
Larian has some bright looking years ahead.

I guarantee you that it will win the codex goty.

It's not like we have a bumper crop of RPGs or anything. The only competitors right now are maybe Starfield (lol) and Colony Ship.

Hell, maybe even Caves of Lore.

 

[mediocrepoet]

villainous vampire Sir Fang

reminds me of my favorite boss from world of warcraft

They named that guy after my video card.

 

[ERYFKRAD]

villainous vampire Sir Fang

reminds me of my favorite boss from world of warcraft

They named that guy after my video card.

I didn't know your video card was a lord. Guess they'll hand those out to anybody these days, even in Leafland.

 

[NecroLord]

All this example is completely wrong. Gygax was history buff and hardcore Christian before he created D&D. He made clerics this way because he knows how they were presented in culture, like Turpin from "La Chanson de Roland" or even Brother Tuck from Robin Hood.

The cleric class originated in Dave Arneson's Blackmoor campaign, as a counterweight to the player-controlled villainous vampire Sir Fang, although it seems the prohibition against edged/piercing weapons came from Gary Gygax's interpretation of the class. See Bishop Carr - First D&D Cleric.

Never really understood this dumb restriction on the weapons a Cleric can use.
Bashing someone's skull in or bludgeoning their heads to death is a-ok, but Pelor forbid you use a sword to slash your enemies with...

 

[Fedora Master]

It's based on the - apocryphal - ruling that real life clergy aren't allowed to spill blood.

 

[0sacred]

It's based on the - apocryphal - ruling that real life clergy aren't allowed to spill blood.

so they should be allowed to use a sponge on a stick and not much else