Barbarian - doesn't make sense, since he was raised in a civilized place, and knows how to read. Druid and Ranger - I think that without being in nature for a significant amount of time, it wouldn't make sense as a class for the hero. Druids need to commune with nature and rangers need some basic training in survival and stealth in the wild.
Barbarians aren't necessarily from uncivilized lands. Like the Berserker, sometimes it's just a fighting style and not a background. Further, as far as I know, 3rd edition was the only time Barbarians innately could not read as a class.
Druids can commune with nature meditating in the keep garden, pondering the mysteries of life with Nessie the cow.
Rangers aren't necessarily highly trained commandos exclusively. Maybe the PC read the Baldur's Gate equivalent of an Army Ranger Training Manual.
The Barbarian class in BG2, was taken from 3rd edition, the same goes for the Monk and Sorcerer. Besides the official rules, look up the definition of barbarian.
I can't see how someone can commune nature and become a druid when being inside a fortress all his life.
Reading an army training manual doesn't give you the most basic training you need and won't make you combat-ready.
I know you can find reasons to try and somehow justify taking these classes, but they still wouldn't make as much sense as the other classes.
Barbarians per Robert E. Howard and his Conan series are the basis of the class in the original D&D portrayals, They didn't read and lived in isolated small clanish huts not cities or keeps....since that time there have been some "adjustments"
Not sure Druids care to commune with domesticated animals, they are described as more woodland.
Rangers are not commandos They are hunters and foresters, who know the ways of the wood...but not necessarily urban areas or Close Quarters Combat
The Barbarian class in BG2, was taken from 3rd edition, the same goes for the Monk and Sorcerer. Besides the official rules, look up the definition of barbarian.
From the in-game description: "A Barbarian can be an excellent warrior. While not as disciplined or as skilled as a normal fighter, the Barbarian can willingly throw himself into a berserker rage, becoming a tougher and stronger opponent."
I don't see any mention of having to be from an Uthgardt tribe or raised by wolves. Even in 3rd Edition, Barbarian levels aren't necessarily being a primitive. You're perfectly able to put 2 points or whatever it is to become literate and roleplay as though you never were illiterate.
Barbarian as a word originates from a roman slang to describe the wild uncivilized people north of the Rhine whose language sounded like the bahing of sheep. Picture then a clannish warrior who is an outsider to the local civilization with his or her own belief system and general cultural ignorance and lack of understanding if educational and technological advancement. There are historical exceptions: The Japanese saw the Europeans as barbarians during the 15th century though Europeans had travelled further and knew more about many topics.
.Reading an army training manual doesn't give you the most basic training you need and won't make you combat-ready.
Considering this is a world which has manuals that increase stats just by reading them...
If its just by reading them, then there's magic involved which makes this a rare phenomenon. However, I'm mostly sure that the manuals implied some sort of training and development on the background.
Regardless, stats aren't class. Class is a infinitely more defining characteristic than the ability scores can ever hope to be.
I have some detailed info on candlekeep from the creator of the realms. http://www.candlekeep.com/library/articles/ck_scroll.htm It's a must-read if you ask me, there is a big garden in Candlekeep (called the Grove) maby just enough for a Ranger of Druid :P (not if you ask me)
A garden is not really Nature in its splendor, is it? Its not the stone walls and the paved streets that bothers a druid, its the dissociation from the wilds.
Wow, people really don't understand the difference between "this is the least likely" and "this is impossible", do they?
Anyway, interesting topic. It'd depend on the character stats; I feel a slightly more scholarly path is more likely, but if you're born a bit thick, then the combat roles would make sense.
Fighter I could see training with the Watchers.
Thief I could see as someone growing up as a mischief-maker. Remember, at level 1 you're not an accomplished master criminal, but someone who's okay in a fight, and decent at sneaking around and poking into corners uninvited.
Cleric and/or Bard as someone brought up worshiping Oghma, each in their own way.
Mage is an easy one (I like Mage/Thief, myself: an accomplice to Imoen who abuses their magic talents a bit).
Rangers, Druids, Paladins, Monks all seem a bit trickier to explain and less likely.
@The_Guilty_Party Well to be honest after the first 2 pages it just sort of turned into a bunch of kibitizing to wile away the time till they release BG:EE
The Barbarian class in BG2, was taken from 3rd edition, the same goes for the Monk and Sorcerer. Besides the official rules, look up the definition of barbarian.
From the in-game description: "A Barbarian can be an excellent warrior. While not as disciplined or as skilled as a normal fighter, the Barbarian can willingly throw himself into a berserker rage, becoming a tougher and stronger opponent."
I don't see any mention of having to be from an Uthgardt tribe or raised by wolves. Even in 3rd Edition, Barbarian levels aren't necessarily being a primitive. You're perfectly able to put 2 points or whatever it is to become literate and roleplay as though you never were illiterate.
I meant the definition outside of BG and D&D. Of course they won't contradict themselves within the game.
Everyone is talking about Monks not being plausible for Candlekeep and forgetting Cadderly's love Danica, who came to Spirit Soaring to learn from texts there? It's entirely possible for CHARNAME to see a visiting Monk practicing and going "WHOA! How does he do that?!", getting some training, and then learning from texts at Candlekeep.
Logicly speaking any race or for that matter any species you could be a pigbear and it wouldn't be strange with how many creatures Bhaal slept with (I dought he knows one mortal from another the way evil gods are). Class hmm... I say sorcerer cuz of gods blood Mage cuz of your foster father fighter of any kind cuz of guards and your fathers the lord of murder killing comes naturally thief cuz its fun and cleric cuz you might be into that gods stuff. Everything else falls somewhere in there see any class works. And alignment would be any cuz everyone has there own view of the world good people have produced serial killer children
It is possible a monk lived at candle keep and taught the protagonist enough to begin his or her basic skills. The question for me is how Druids pass on their training. Probably not in books. More likely it is a lengthy apprenticeship. What about rangers? And barbarian is less a class than a way of life. I know berserkers were real among Saxons. And they used fury to drive out fear of death to make themselves more intimidating. That was taught.
@taletotell I think they also used some kind of drink/psychoactive drug or mushroom. And put something in their hair to make it harder, like a helmet. So, they were the equivalent of liquored up.
.Reading an army training manual doesn't give you the most basic training you need and won't make you combat-ready.
Considering this is a world which has manuals that increase stats just by reading them...
If its just by reading them, then there's magic involved which makes this a rare phenomenon. However, I'm mostly sure that the manuals implied some sort of training and development on the background.
Regardless, stats aren't class. Class is a infinitely more defining characteristic than the ability scores can ever hope to be.
I don't think it's in BG but there are also magical tomes\items that granted 'experience' simply by using them also.
I don't think it's in BG but there are also magical tomes\items that granted 'experience' simply by using them also.
There's a how-to guide on adventuring you can buy in Icewind Dale 2 that gives the party like 20k XP. It's description says that it covers such informative topics as "The Many And Varied Uses of 10' Poles" and "Face It, You're Neutral Evil."
@ Schneidend I can not agree that definitions from outside D&D are not relevant. Operating within restrictions is what makes the game and the plot interesting. If anything can happen than nothing is unexpected and planning is impossible. We use reality as a frame of reference and then add in the elements of fantasy. By doing so we have expectations that can be manipulated by the writer to add adventure and excitement. Get rid of outside rules and the games get silly. Silly can be fun (see the phantom toll booth) but it never feels serious. These restrictions may seem inhibiting to you but they are like the string on a kite. Sure they hold the kite to the ground and limit how high it can go, but without the inhibition it can't fly anyway.
I don't think it's in BG but there are also magical tomes\items that granted 'experience' simply by using them also.
There's a how-to guide on adventuring you can buy in Icewind Dale 2 that gives the party like 20k XP. It's description says that it covers such informative topics as "The Many And Varied Uses of 10' Poles" and "Face It, You're Neutral Evil."
I don't agree with that, but if you want to claim that any one of these classes makes sense as much as any other,[angry reaper voice] so be it [/angry reaper voice].
Well, it's the perk of the player's choice really. It's what role playing is about after all!
I think the most logical classes would be probably fighter and cleric (because of all the guards and priests in Candlekeep) as well as mages in part (many visitors can be mages after all)
Bards and thieves are big question marks I guess, since there isn't a lot to steal or to sing for in Candlekeep. Unless the PC Bhaalspawn really wants to enter the quartet of prophecy singing dudes XD
I guess a human as far as race goes. IIRC the majority of humanoids in that area are human.
A Bard can be a lore master. And with all the books around it would certainly not be surprising to see someone growing up there wish to become a scholar.
But anyway, as others have observed, it's strictly a roleplaying preference.
@ Schneidend I can not agree that definitions from outside D&D are not relevant. Operating within restrictions is what makes the game and the plot interesting. If anything can happen than nothing is unexpected and planning is impossible. We use reality as a frame of reference and then add in the elements of fantasy. By doing so we have expectations that can be manipulated by the writer to add adventure and excitement. Get rid of outside rules and the games get silly. Silly can be fun (see the phantom toll booth) but it never feels serious. These restrictions may seem inhibiting to you but they are like the string on a kite. Sure they hold the kite to the ground and limit how high it can go, but without the inhibition it can't fly anyway.
Right, but in this particular case, the real world definition of what a barbarian is simply isn't relevant to the in-game definition of the Barbarian class. The computer games and the game books themselves will often say that Barbarian levels do not necessarily mean the character is a primitive.
Has anyone ever read the automatically generated biography on the character screen in original Baldur's Gate? It justifies your race/class combo pretty well, though it struggles -a bit- with Ranger and Druid, seeing how you've never been outside Candlekeep. Pulls off those too though. But it will be interesting to see how the "new" classes (kits, Barbarian/Sorcerer/Monk) is handled in Enhanced Edition.
Also great point about Danica but I think I might have brought her up previously as well. Although not with the same degree of eloquence.
Personally for me (thinking of playing through just 1 last time before this launches), the one I have the most problem with is an assassin. While you can read about poisons and things from a book, might even pick up the idea that fighting fair isn't exactly the brightest idea if you want to live, you'll still act like a regular rogue for everyone else so they don't understand just how dark your knowledge has gone. Hiding in plain sight if you will. And an assassin, especially if they're evil, would understand this more than most.
I just wish I didn't have to be a fighter/thief or Kensief in order dual wield Varscona and Dagger of Venom.
Comments
I can't see how someone can commune nature and become a druid when being inside a fortress all his life.
Reading an army training manual doesn't give you the most basic training you need and won't make you combat-ready.
I know you can find reasons to try and somehow justify taking these classes, but they still wouldn't make as much sense as the other classes.
Not sure Druids care to commune with domesticated animals, they are described as more woodland.
Rangers are not commandos
"A Barbarian can be an excellent warrior. While not as disciplined or as skilled as a normal fighter, the Barbarian can willingly throw himself into a berserker rage, becoming a tougher and stronger opponent."
I don't see any mention of having to be from an Uthgardt tribe or raised by wolves. Even in 3rd Edition, Barbarian levels aren't necessarily being a primitive. You're perfectly able to put 2 points or whatever it is to become literate and roleplay as though you never were illiterate.
There are historical exceptions:
The Japanese saw the Europeans as barbarians during the 15th century though Europeans had travelled further and knew more about many topics.
Regardless, stats aren't class. Class is a infinitely more defining characteristic than the ability scores can ever hope to be.
It's a must-read if you ask me, there is a big garden in Candlekeep (called the Grove) maby just enough for a Ranger of Druid :P (not if you ask me)
Anyway, interesting topic. It'd depend on the character stats; I feel a slightly more scholarly path is more likely, but if you're born a bit thick, then the combat roles would make sense.
Fighter I could see training with the Watchers.
Thief I could see as someone growing up as a mischief-maker. Remember, at level 1 you're not an accomplished master criminal, but someone who's okay in a fight, and decent at sneaking around and poking into corners uninvited.
Cleric and/or Bard as someone brought up worshiping Oghma, each in their own way.
Mage is an easy one (I like Mage/Thief, myself: an accomplice to Imoen who abuses their magic talents a bit).
Rangers, Druids, Paladins, Monks all seem a bit trickier to explain and less likely.
Well to be honest after the first 2 pages it just sort of turned into a bunch of kibitizing to wile away the time till they release BG:EE
And barbarian is less a class than a way of life. I know berserkers were real among Saxons. And they used fury to drive out fear of death to make themselves more intimidating. That was taught.
Can we agree that maybe the definition from outside of BG and D&D is largely irrelevant to both BG and D&D? There's a how-to guide on adventuring you can buy in Icewind Dale 2 that gives the party like 20k XP. It's description says that it covers such informative topics as "The Many And Varied Uses of 10' Poles" and "Face It, You're Neutral Evil."
I can not agree that definitions from outside D&D are not relevant. Operating within restrictions is what makes the game and the plot interesting. If anything can happen than nothing is unexpected and planning is impossible. We use reality as a frame of reference and then add in the elements of fantasy. By doing so we have expectations that can be manipulated by the writer to add adventure and excitement. Get rid of outside rules and the games get silly. Silly can be fun (see the phantom toll booth) but it never feels serious.
These restrictions may seem inhibiting to you but they are like the string on a kite. Sure they hold the kite to the ground and limit how high it can go, but without the inhibition it can't fly anyway.
A Bard can be a lore master. And with all the books around it would certainly not be surprising to see someone growing up there wish to become a scholar.
But anyway, as others have observed, it's strictly a roleplaying preference.
GUTBUSTER!
Also great point about Danica but I think I might have brought her up previously as well. Although not with the same degree of eloquence.
Personally for me (thinking of playing through just 1 last time before this launches), the one I have the most problem with is an assassin. While you can read about poisons and things from a book, might even pick up the idea that fighting fair isn't exactly the brightest idea if you want to live, you'll still act like a regular rogue for everyone else so they don't understand just how dark your knowledge has gone. Hiding in plain sight if you will. And an assassin, especially if they're evil, would understand this more than most.
I just wish I didn't have to be a fighter/thief or Kensief in order dual wield Varscona and Dagger of Venom.