Again, we're talking about generalizing entire species of non-humans into subscribing to the exact same dogma. The idea that humans are the only ones who can break from any norms is patently ridiculous.
It's to represent how much *easier* it is for humans to be adaptable. Other races need disadvantages so that humans can have an advantage. Hell, humans can't multi-class and there's no real reason for it other than to make multi-classing an advantage for other races.
I'd much prefer that to purely cosmetic races. That's just dull.
I wholeheartedly agree with Schneidend, to say "typically RACE X doesn't do this, that's why it isn't an option" is silly. Adventurers aren't typical members of their race, their the ones that stand out and become heroes. Also, this line of thinking still doesn't address the idea of a member of a race being raised among another race, then the guardians racial norms would influence the child, not those of his traditional race.
To limit other races from playing certain classes to make human characters special is kinda lame and is likely the reason why humans actually got some racial distinction of their own in later editions.
It's to represent how much *easier* it is for humans to be adaptable. Other races need disadvantages so that humans can have an advantage. Hell, humans can't multi-class and there's no real reason for it other than to make multi-classing an advantage for other races.
I'd much prefer that to purely cosmetic races. That's just dull.
Even in 2E the races aren't purely cosmetic. And, as I pointed out earlier: "Later editions differentiated the hell out of the races with more unique racial features, racial feats, easier access to racial weapons, racial paragon paths/prestige classes. Much more effective to give races access to every baseline choice but give them choices only they can have."
Yeah, it's like that new PnP adventure "Murder in baldur's gate". It has the symbol of Bhaal on the front page and trying its best to lure me into 4ed, but my god I am not giving it a chance since I am pretty sure I will be hopelessly disappointed.
I am all for improvements/better implementation(out of the box thinking within the box) of 2nd edition in bg3, but if I have to play with a new system then project eternity and the new torment is already offering that.
MiBG is not 4e Its D&D Next, and 3.5e, and AD&D if you want. Its Ruleset neutral, and great!
I want D&D Next for BG3! But it can wait for me. I have no time to play... Its sad I know. But have to finish IWD IWD2 NWN2 BGEE BG2EE first. I also need to read trough about 200 FR books on the shelf at home...
Strongly think they should keep to the same ruleset that they used for BG1 and 2. Mainly for continuity and it just wouldn't be right changing to a new ruleset.
Well, Since BG3 will most likely not need to seamlessly follow the gameplay of BG2 most likely, unless they REALLY want to continue the story of the Bhaalspawn where it left off at ToB...
They don't NEED to use AD&D anymore... While it would be nice, I don't see Atari/WotC letting it happen... Gotta market those new editions...
I haven't played D&DNext yet but from what I heard a lot of people who playtested it in the early stages really didn't like it. However I did play and really enjoy 4E and I wondered why there wasn't a video game that used those rules yet. They are very well defined and would seem perfect for strategy/rpg. For BG3 however, I'm not sure. Only if they would be able to properly bring it into the semi-real-time that BG1 and 2 have going on.
Again, we're talking about generalizing entire species of non-humans into subscribing to the exact same dogma. The idea that humans are the only ones who can break from any norms is patently ridiculous.
You've completely missed the point.
Cats are really good at balancing and landing on their feet. elephants, not so much. An intelligent Cat might make an excellent thief where an intelligent Elephant probably would make a more effective fighter. This does not detract from Cats or Elephants as (hypothetical) player characters. It merely means that they have different strengths.
Not every race has to have EXACTLY the same strengths. It is OK for different races to be better or worse at things. It is OK for different cultures to have direct and lasting impacts on people's characters and their capabilities. This doesn't make them less important or less equal. It merely means that they are different.
I'm more in favor of races having built-in mechanics that dissuade you from making a poor choice. Consider Arcanum: dwarves are TERRIBLE at using magic, but if you absolutely want to, it's not literally impossible. Similarly, elves are TERRIBLE at using technology, but again, for a niche character idea, it's possible. Most people won't do this because it's so ineffective, which means well over 99% of the race (even 99% of the adventurers of the race) won't pick this ineffective choice, but if you want to be an elephant rogue (the elephant in the room, as it were) you can. It's not unlike being a dwarven thief with a Dex cap of 16, you just aren't as good at it as another race would be, but the option is there.
Cats are really good at balancing and landing on their feet. elephants, not so much. An intelligent Cat might make an excellent thief where an intelligent Elephant probably would make a more effective fighter. This does not detract from Cats or Elephants as (hypothetical) player characters. It merely means that they have different strengths.
Not every race has to have EXACTLY the same strengths. It is OK for different races to be better or worse at things. It is OK for different cultures to have direct and lasting impacts on people's characters and their capabilities. This doesn't make them less important or less equal. It merely means that they are different.
The cat still has +2 to Dexterity vs. the elephant's +2 to strength, or what have you. They are different, and they're likely to approach being a Thief differently.
It is okay for different races to be better or worse at things, but how would we even know if they can't even BE something for no other reason than "because they just don't"?
Again, please see my earlier post. Cultural difference can have impacts as well. So our 'Elephant' based humanoid who is large, bulky and noisy, may be 'Capable' of being a thief, but because of his physical limitations and because culturally, Elephants wouldn't even consider the stealthy path, very few Elephants are going to choose this as a path. And any that do, probably won't last past the first adventure.
Consider the conversation that you have with Merl in Beregost. he describes a 'Son' who took up adventuring, but simply wasn't cut out for it... And died because of it. Adventurers have to be of a certain potential and caliber in order to be successful. Maybe not at level 1, but basically, they need to have 'The right Stuff' to go all the way to the superbowl, or they simply would not choose that as a profession.
To be clear, I am not saying that Dwarves as a race should be prohibited from casting any magic, EVER! I am saying that due to physical, mental and cultural difference in the way Dwarves are, it is an extremely rare (read Not a PC choice) instance where they would ever consider even trying to be an adventuring Wizard. And any that did, probably would find it much MUCH simpler to use an axe or a dagger to dispatch their enemies.
If adventurers are intended to be that 1% of all citizens of Faerun that 'Can' adventure, consider a Dwarven Wizard to thus:
Dwarven Population = 1,000,000 Dwarven adventurers = 10,000 Dwarven adventurers that even thought about being a wizard = 1 Dwarven adventurers who thought about being a wizard that actually are capable of being one = .00001
In other words, NPCs.
the direction you want it to be, as a "Normal" class choice, there would be hundreds of them around instead of that one in a million that, culturally, physically and mentally, they should be.
If adventurers are intended to be that 1% of all citizens of Faerun that 'Can' adventure, consider a Dwarven Wizard to thus:
Dwarven Population = 1,000,000 Dwarven adventurers = 10,000 Dwarven adventurers that even thought about being a wizard = 1 Dwarven adventurers who thought about being a wizard that actually are capable of being one = .00001
In other words, NPCs.
the direction you want it to be, as a "Normal" class choice, there would be hundreds of them around instead of that one in a million that, culturally, physically and mentally, they should be.
That's all well and good if the objective of DnD is to enforce and maintain cultural norms and racial stereotypes. It's not. It is about playing through heroic adventures with exceptional characters. Therefore, in a world where Dwarves typically don't become wizards, the one time in a thousand that one becomes an effective adventuring wizard, is by definition what DnD games are about.
And what is it that makes Dwarves terrible mages exactly? They can have 18 Int just like humans and elves... there's nothing stopping a Dwarf from excelling at being a wizard besides the arbitrary rule that says they can't.
That's all well and good if the objective of DnD is to enforce and maintain cultural norms and racial stereotypes. It's not. It is about playing through heroic adventures with exceptional characters. Therefore, in a world where Dwarves typically don't become wizards, the one time in a thousand that one becomes an effective adventuring wizard, is by definition what DnD games are about.
And what is it that makes Dwarves terrible mages exactly? They can have 18 Int just like humans and elves... there's nothing stopping a Dwarf from excelling at being a wizard besides the arbitrary rule that says they can't.
I feel some people fall victim of what I call reverse racism. Basically, some people appear to think that any differences what so ever need to be assiduously ignored so that everyone can be 'The same'. In doing so, they want to make things so similar that any differences at all are bad and therefore ignored.
I am not saying 'Dwarves' in particular shouldn't make good wizards. I was using that as an example of a playable race where there is a reasonable argument why they may not be as prevalent as elven wizards. Personally, I like a good dwarf wizard. But the original Advanced rules limited races to Class/level restrictions. I think that these were not necessarily a bad thing and done to a purpose. That purpose was to make it that fantastic creatures such as elves and dwarves and gnomes were rare and therefore wondrous, instead of merely short, tall or funny looking humans.
Cultural diversity should be embraced, not swept under the carpet as 'Bad'. People, cultures and ways of thinking are different. Why make everyone exactly the same? Why 'closet' the fact that a culture might see things completely different than another culture? Why assume that every Dwarf wants nothing more than to ignore 100 years of their lives to be just like humans? What is so shameful about being a dwarf that they need to be another human clone, but shorter?
I'm not sure why you think anyone is arguing that dwarves elves gnomes etc. should be "human clones" I don't think anyone said that, I know I certainly didn't. There are many factors in the game that makes those races different than humans, infravision for example, bonuses to stats or to hit with racial weapons etc. What I am saying is there is no good reason, mechanicly, that a dwarf or any other race should be restricted from playing any class they want to. Does giving Dwarves the option to be a mage change their culture in the Forgotten Realms? No, since 3rd edition and higher Dwarves can be mages or sorcerers or bards and Dwarf culture is still the same.
Where I think the confusion lays is that you seem to believe that giving a race the option to be a certain class dumbs down their culture as a whole because a very very small percentage of them are "doing what humans do" and that's simply not the case. It would be like saying if one guy ate a Gazelle that humans are just bald two-legged lions, because one ate a Gazelle once and only lions are allowed to do that. The fact that humans don't have any racial traits (besides dual classing) shouldn't mean that if another race plays a class that normally only humans can be (under the arbitrary rules to make them feel special) that that race is now only "shorter humans." That's a game mechanic issue and has nothing to do with the culture or feel of the race, which is very much in the realm of fluff.
"Cultural and racial diversity" were modelled much better in 3.5, were despite being able to be any class even the most gifted dwarf could never be as good a wizard as the most gifted elf - and even worse as a sorcerer.
Then again, when your argument for class restrictions comes down to "you're racist!", it feels like it'll be pretty pointless to argue.
I'm inclined to agree with GoodSteve. The crux of your argument, the_spyder, is asserting that we want dwarves/elves/halflings to be just like humans, when neither of us has said anything remotely like that.
The crux of the argument is actually that the original reasons for the race/class/level limitations weren't as arbitrary as you want to label them. There were valid reasons why they existed when they were created, and there are justifications why they may be relevant. Finally, those reasons do not (in my view) make those races lesser in any regard, nor were they intended to be value judgments on them as you seem to think they do.
But, I have no wish to argue the point. I am perfectly happy with the rules set that BG1 came out with and hope that they (whoever would potentially work on such a beast) use that rules set for any future endeavors. I place no value judgement on 5th edition (good or bad) as I don't know it. I just want consistency.
"Cultural and racial diversity" were modelled much better in 3.5, were despite being able to be any class even the most gifted dwarf could never be as good a wizard as the most gifted elf - and even worse as a sorcerer.
Then again, when your argument for class restrictions comes down to "you're racist!", it feels like it'll be pretty pointless to argue.
Eh, what? What makes an elf any better at being a Wizard than a dwarf? I can see the argument for Sorcerer due to Charisma, but Wizard?
"Cultural and racial diversity" were modelled much better in 3.5, were despite being able to be any class even the most gifted dwarf could never be as good a wizard as the most gifted elf - and even worse as a sorcerer.
Then again, when your argument for class restrictions comes down to "you're racist!", it feels like it'll be pretty pointless to argue.
Eh, what? What makes an elf any better at being a Wizard than a dwarf? I can see the argument for Sorcerer due to Charisma, but Wizard?
Eh, sorry. I've plated too many Sun Elf Wizards in NwN2 that I've forgotten that isn't the baseline for elves in core.
It is certainly true in Pathfinder though, where elves not only have a higher Int potential and innate racial bonuses to overcome spell resistance but dwarven wizards are also more likely to focus on item crafting, since that's what they get bonuses in.
Comments
I'd much prefer that to purely cosmetic races. That's just dull.
To limit other races from playing certain classes to make human characters special is kinda lame and is likely the reason why humans actually got some racial distinction of their own in later editions.
"Later editions differentiated the hell out of the races with more unique racial features, racial feats, easier access to racial weapons, racial paragon paths/prestige classes. Much more effective to give races access to every baseline choice but give them choices only they can have."
I want D&D Next for BG3! But it can wait for me. I have no time to play... Its sad I know. But have to finish IWD IWD2 NWN2 BGEE BG2EE first. I also need to read trough about 200 FR books on the shelf at home...
Onward, to futility!
They don't NEED to use AD&D anymore... While it would be nice, I don't see Atari/WotC letting it happen... Gotta market those new editions...
However I did play and really enjoy 4E and I wondered why there wasn't a video game that used those rules yet. They are very well defined and would seem perfect for strategy/rpg.
For BG3 however, I'm not sure. Only if they would be able to properly bring it into the semi-real-time that BG1 and 2 have going on.
Murder in Baldur's Gate also includes 4E conversions, in addition to 3.5 and such.
there is no 4e
Cats are really good at balancing and landing on their feet. elephants, not so much. An intelligent Cat might make an excellent thief where an intelligent Elephant probably would make a more effective fighter. This does not detract from Cats or Elephants as (hypothetical) player characters. It merely means that they have different strengths.
Not every race has to have EXACTLY the same strengths. It is OK for different races to be better or worse at things. It is OK for different cultures to have direct and lasting impacts on people's characters and their capabilities. This doesn't make them less important or less equal. It merely means that they are different.
It is okay for different races to be better or worse at things, but how would we even know if they can't even BE something for no other reason than "because they just don't"?
Consider the conversation that you have with Merl in Beregost. he describes a 'Son' who took up adventuring, but simply wasn't cut out for it... And died because of it. Adventurers have to be of a certain potential and caliber in order to be successful. Maybe not at level 1, but basically, they need to have 'The right Stuff' to go all the way to the superbowl, or they simply would not choose that as a profession.
To be clear, I am not saying that Dwarves as a race should be prohibited from casting any magic, EVER! I am saying that due to physical, mental and cultural difference in the way Dwarves are, it is an extremely rare (read Not a PC choice) instance where they would ever consider even trying to be an adventuring Wizard. And any that did, probably would find it much MUCH simpler to use an axe or a dagger to dispatch their enemies.
Dwarven Population = 1,000,000
Dwarven adventurers = 10,000
Dwarven adventurers that even thought about being a wizard = 1
Dwarven adventurers who thought about being a wizard that actually are capable of being one = .00001
In other words, NPCs.
the direction you want it to be, as a "Normal" class choice, there would be hundreds of them around instead of that one in a million that, culturally, physically and mentally, they should be.
And what is it that makes Dwarves terrible mages exactly? They can have 18 Int just like humans and elves... there's nothing stopping a Dwarf from excelling at being a wizard besides the arbitrary rule that says they can't.
I am not saying 'Dwarves' in particular shouldn't make good wizards. I was using that as an example of a playable race where there is a reasonable argument why they may not be as prevalent as elven wizards. Personally, I like a good dwarf wizard. But the original Advanced rules limited races to Class/level restrictions. I think that these were not necessarily a bad thing and done to a purpose. That purpose was to make it that fantastic creatures such as elves and dwarves and gnomes were rare and therefore wondrous, instead of merely short, tall or funny looking humans.
Cultural diversity should be embraced, not swept under the carpet as 'Bad'. People, cultures and ways of thinking are different. Why make everyone exactly the same? Why 'closet' the fact that a culture might see things completely different than another culture? Why assume that every Dwarf wants nothing more than to ignore 100 years of their lives to be just like humans? What is so shameful about being a dwarf that they need to be another human clone, but shorter?
Where I think the confusion lays is that you seem to believe that giving a race the option to be a certain class dumbs down their culture as a whole because a very very small percentage of them are "doing what humans do" and that's simply not the case. It would be like saying if one guy ate a Gazelle that humans are just bald two-legged lions, because one ate a Gazelle once and only lions are allowed to do that. The fact that humans don't have any racial traits (besides dual classing) shouldn't mean that if another race plays a class that normally only humans can be (under the arbitrary rules to make them feel special) that that race is now only "shorter humans." That's a game mechanic issue and has nothing to do with the culture or feel of the race, which is very much in the realm of fluff.
Then again, when your argument for class restrictions comes down to "you're racist!", it feels like it'll be pretty pointless to argue.
But, I have no wish to argue the point. I am perfectly happy with the rules set that BG1 came out with and hope that they (whoever would potentially work on such a beast) use that rules set for any future endeavors. I place no value judgement on 5th edition (good or bad) as I don't know it. I just want consistency.
It is certainly true in Pathfinder though, where elves not only have a higher Int potential and innate racial bonuses to overcome spell resistance but dwarven wizards are also more likely to focus on item crafting, since that's what they get bonuses in.