Yes, I know. I just wanted to point out that edition doesn't necessarily equal certain DR frames. It's a little different with 4E as that changed a lot. Edition and DR timeframe overlap a lot there. With the other editions, that's not the case.
I don't believe I'm able to express myself properly here
Have you heard the tales of the Frozen Dale where a Halfling Paladin/Wizard and her allies stopped the Legion of the Chimera about 100 years ago? Well, Mazzy Fentan, have you?!
Why don't we get specific? IWD2 is set around 30 years after the events of IWD. This is still before BG1 and the events leading up to the Spellplague (bleh) haven't occurred. Helm is alive, and the world you recognize is hunky-dory. If we're updating IWD2 rules, we're going off of the old timeline when the game is actually set.
New games with newer rules and newer timelines may prove more problematic, and may not, in fact, resemble any world you would recognize. IWD2 shouldn't suffer from this problem, however, if the possibility exists of updating it.
In the novel The Sentinel by Troy Denning, Helm returns during the events of The Sundering. So, if an IWD3 were set in the current "modern day" of the latest Realms then Helm would be around. Of course, that's about a 200 hundred year time jump from the original (something like that).
Wizards of the Coast has made a point of being ruleset edition neutral (the new books should work with any ruleset you prefer 1st, 2nd, 3rd, etc. etc.), and some are hoping this will also mean timeline neutral so new products could be set in something other than the Post Spellplague/Post Sundering time. Would be kind of fun to see an IWD3 set in the past using a 2nd or 3.5 edition ruleset.
Disconnects like that are the reason there have been Realms Shaking Events, because every time the designers make a change they fear people won't understand if there isn't a story based reason for the change. Hence, assassins all dying when Bhaal sucked in their essences as an explanation for removing assassins from the game, or the Spellplague blowing up half the world and frying wizards to explain the new map and radical changes to spellcasting in 4th Edition. And, of course, The Sundering to explain why they retconned whole massive chunks of 4th Edition changes.
It's also why, I expect, the designers don't usually create products set in previous timelines because, as you point out with Mazzy, going back to a previous time with a more modern ruleset can create confusion. Of course, they could simply explain it away with "the Realms is a vast land and none know everything about every corner of it. And the gods themselves are capricious and changeable. What may seem to be forbidden may not have always been so, and may not always remain so." Also, who's to say Mazzy's desire to be a paladin wasn't inspired by legendary tales of a time and place when a halfling did attain paladin status?
I'm not saying it's a satisfactory explanation, but it's a discrepancy created by ruleset changes and thus is bound to drop a bomb on things occasionally regardless of how you handle it.
Yet there are Halfling Paladins saving the Dale long before Mazzy was even born. Am I the only one seeing a huge disconnect?
Well, a DM with any sense in their head would let a player who wanted to be a halfling Paladin play a damn halfling Paladin, so it's not as if halfling Paladins never existed ever before 3rd Edition. Race restrictions for basic classes are idiotic, so it stands to reason that a lot of people just didn't follow them, even in the AD&D days.
Once IWD is released it would make sense to add a priest of Auril (probably replacing Talos).
[ /shameless self-promotion ]
Having a priest of Myrkul and Bane once IWD is released would make a lot of sense as well. Myrkul was the god of the dead and IMO extremely cool god. With Bane he was the prime Evil god of the era before the ToT (Time of Troubles) when the gods were "cast down" and forced to walk among normal people. There aren't enough evil gods as it is anyway. Malar is kinda meh to me since having a cleric of Malar is way too similar to a druid so I don't see the point why play one when you can play a druid.
Anyway I don't think anything needs to be replaced, rather added more than anything. Having only three choices for cleric kits perhaps makes sense for BG series (due to possible strongholds in BG2) but for IWD there should be far more choices.
Yet there are Halfling Paladins saving the Dale long before Mazzy was even born. Am I the only one seeing a huge disconnect?
Well, a DM with any sense in their head would let a player who wanted to be a halfling Paladin play a damn halfling Paladin, so it's not as if halfling Paladins never existed ever before 3rd Edition. Race restrictions for basic classes are idiotic, so it stands to reason that a lot of people just didn't follow them, even in the AD&D days.
This is where I'd edit Mazzy's portrait to have a single dramatic tear if I even knew how to art.
I'm always baffled by how the rules are so malleable but everyone seems to know them. Heck, comparing BG to the goldbox, there are tons of differences off the bat and they're both the same edition (or rather, the original BG1 was 2E.)
Amusingly enough Mazzy couldn't be a paladin in BG2 anyway since she doesn't meet the minimum requirements. Go to charm school, little one!
To be fair neither does Anomen (along with obviously Minsc). To have dual classed into a cleric he should have 17 wisdom and instead he starts with 12.
Have you heard the tales of the Frozen Dale where a Halfling Paladin/Wizard and her allies stopped the Legion of the Chimera about 100 years ago? Well, Mazzy Fentan, have you?!
It does get strange. But by the power of ret-con, these things are all possible! I'm very sure that with the advent of the 3E FRCS, by 1372 there had never been a question about the existence of such beings with the common folk in all the lands between the Shining South and the Spine of the World. What a woundrous spell this "ret-con" must be
Yet there are Halfling Paladins saving the Dale long before Mazzy was even born. Am I the only one seeing a huge disconnect?
Well, a DM with any sense in their head would let a player who wanted to be a halfling Paladin play a damn halfling Paladin, so it's not as if halfling Paladins never existed ever before 3rd Edition. Race restrictions for basic classes are idiotic, so it stands to reason that a lot of people just didn't follow them, even in the AD&D days.
Yes, we did exactly this. I've even played a dwarven wizard in 2e. One of my favorite characters ever
Amusingly enough Mazzy couldn't be a paladin in BG2 anyway since she doesn't meet the minimum requirements. Go to charm school, little one!
To be fair neither does Anomen (along with obviously Minsc). To have dual classed into a cleric he should have 17 wisdom and instead he starts with 12.
Good point! Coran was a big ol cheater with his longbow skill in BG too. I guess this proves the rules were meant to be broken.
Comments
I don't believe I'm able to express myself properly here
Have you heard the tales of the Frozen Dale where a Halfling Paladin/Wizard and her allies stopped the Legion of the Chimera about 100 years ago? Well, Mazzy Fentan, have you?!
New games with newer rules and newer timelines may prove more problematic, and may not, in fact, resemble any world you would recognize. IWD2 shouldn't suffer from this problem, however, if the possibility exists of updating it.
Wizards of the Coast has made a point of being ruleset edition neutral (the new books should work with any ruleset you prefer 1st, 2nd, 3rd, etc. etc.), and some are hoping this will also mean timeline neutral so new products could be set in something other than the Post Spellplague/Post Sundering time. Would be kind of fun to see an IWD3 set in the past using a 2nd or 3.5 edition ruleset.
It's also why, I expect, the designers don't usually create products set in previous timelines because, as you point out with Mazzy, going back to a previous time with a more modern ruleset can create confusion. Of course, they could simply explain it away with "the Realms is a vast land and none know everything about every corner of it. And the gods themselves are capricious and changeable. What may seem to be forbidden may not have always been so, and may not always remain so." Also, who's to say Mazzy's desire to be a paladin wasn't inspired by legendary tales of a time and place when a halfling did attain paladin status?
I'm not saying it's a satisfactory explanation, but it's a discrepancy created by ruleset changes and thus is bound to drop a bomb on things occasionally regardless of how you handle it.
Anyway I don't think anything needs to be replaced, rather added more than anything. Having only three choices for cleric kits perhaps makes sense for BG series (due to possible strongholds in BG2) but for IWD there should be far more choices.
I'm always baffled by how the rules are so malleable but everyone seems to know them. Heck, comparing BG to the goldbox, there are tons of differences off the bat and they're both the same edition (or rather, the original BG1 was 2E.)
Imagine if tax laws were this bendable...
I really hope we get them like IWD2, that was so much better.