It doesnt make sense from a Roleplaying point of view either; sure CHARNAME is the son of a god, him reaching 20+ level is passable, but what about the companions? by the end of ToB they could challenge any god of the forgotten realms if they felt like it.
Is this really true though? I mean how strong are Gods supposed to be stat wise compared to a level 40 character? How would a 6 man level 40 team stand up in the lore?
I mean how strong are Gods supposed to be stat wise compared to a level 40 character?
Some avatars, I know, walk around with 25 in mutiple stats and +5 equipment. That said, as a rule, I try not to make my CHARNAMEs stronger than Sarevok stat-wise, assuming he represents a high-end Bhaalspawn.
Well, bhaal was a random human (humanoid?) that achieved a lot of thing like CHARNAME, before becoming a god. I think the main difference between god and others is the essence, which seems to restore you, (if we check for amelyssan), and give some various spell, which aren't that great.
So the power of that essence would mainly be to renforce the body to make it more "lively"
Well, bhaal was a random human (humanoid?) that achieved a lot of thing like CHARNAME, before becoming a god. I think the main difference between god and others is the essence, which seems to restore you, (if we check for amelyssan), and give some various spell, which aren't that great.
So the power of that essence would mainly be to renforce the body to make it more "lively"
Well, yes and no . A god's portifolio gives them oniscience to a certain extent, and they also earn insights about the planes and the cosmos. Things that a mortal mind might not be able to bear.
I don't like wild mages. I know, they are really powerful - right up until the point where they gate in a pit fiend or drop a cow on themselves and you have to reload.
This is a unpopular opinion? I was under the understanding that more people hated them than like them because they didn't treat magic like a science like the sorcerer and mage does. Seriously I understand low level spells having no real danger behind them, but higher level spells that manipulate time and space should always go off without any trouble, you are messing with the fabrics of reality here and you are no god, no matter how well you know or understand the subject there should always be some time of danger, and that is true in some of the more complex sciences that can put your life in danger like some experiments done in nuclear physics.
I read a lot of hate about Irenicus. I actually found him incredibly appealing as the central antagonist, much more than Sarevok.
Unpopular Opinion:
Icewind Dale is better than either BG. The villains are better, the story is better, the plot is better, the writing is better. The only strikes against it are lack of npc dialogue and its linearity. (Cowers in corner in he fetal position, arms over head)
It gets on my nerves when people say that Imoen should be a swashbuckler, Garrick a skald and Eldoth a Blade. Shall we analyze the facts?
1) A swashbuckler is a flashy, romantic pirate-like thief who performs amazing feats of sword parrying and dodging.
Imoen is a cheerful, curious sharp-minded thief who would rather use a bow from a distance ,keep an eye on traps and avoid unwanted attention.
"Both wouldn't go backtabbing people" isn't really a strong argument.
2) A skald is nordic warlike bard from a culture that privileges oral traditions over written language.
Garrick is a true bard who sings, knows a little magic and loves to learn and experience.
3) A blade is a bard who instead of singing performs blade dances in gracious and intimidating poses, they might also work as assassins . They focus their proficiencies on bladed and throwing weapons.
Eldoth is an opportunistic evil bard who uses his great charisma to manipulate others. Even though he might be strong (and sexy) , he would rather avoid combat (for his own sake) or have others fight for him. His famous "poison arrows" ability reveals that he is more likely to use a bow .
I don't want a Planescape remake. I don't think Beamdog's writing team are good enough to add anything and do it credit, and I don't think a UI update alone justifies a remake.
I don't like how magic resistance is implemented in the game. Imho a high level spell should be harder to resist than a low level spell. I also don't think it should be hit or miss but instead reduced and only rarely no effects. I also think very high levels of magic resistance (over 50% or so) is boring, overpowered and out of tune with the rest of the setting.
I don't like how magic resistance is implemented in the game. Imho a high level spell should be harder to resist than a low level spell. I also don't think it should be hit or miss but instead reduced and only rarely no effects. I also think very high levels of magic resistance (over 50% or so) is boring, overpowered and out of tune with the rest of the setting.
Because giving arcane casters even bigger chances of wrecking absolutely everything is exactly what the trilogy needs.
I think all mages should be wild mages, as magic should be dangerous and unpredictable. Specialist mages should be immune to wild surges in their chosen school and give up the opposing school.
I think all mages should be wild mages, as magic should be dangerous and unpredictable. Specialist mages should be immune to wild surges in their chosen school and give up the opposing school.
I think all mages should be wild mages, as magic should be dangerous and unpredictable. Specialist mages should be immune to wild surges in their chosen school and give up the opposing school.
Post 3rd edition tieflings suck. Most unimaginitive and corny designs in history. Tieflings are supossed to look unique each.
And while we are at it, Dragonborn suck, too. There are already Kobolds, there is no point for them. Goliaths seem pretty pointless as well, but I don't know enough about them to have a real opinion about them.
Also, Pillars of Eternity's Godlikes are the better Planetouched.
I don't want a Planescape remake. I don't think Beamdog's writing team are good enough to add anything and do it credit, and I don't think a UI update alone justifies a remake.
I think they should just update it a bit, most importantly make it 1) stop crashing 2) stop crashing on Wine 3) a native build so I can stop having to use Wine 4) stop crashing.
Other than that they can leave it untouched (I wouldn't even buy it if they add new stuff, the game's just TOO perfect (if we leave combat aside tbh, oh, and all of Beamdog's stuff had great combat (great combat = fun to play) so IMO they could fiddle a bit with that without making the rest of Ps:T feel different) for anyone to touch it.
I think all mages should be wild mages, as magic should be dangerous and unpredictable. Specialist mages should be immune to wild surges in their chosen school and give up the opposing school.
Remind me to never let you GM.
I used to GM warhammer fantasy RP. Magic always had a chance of miscasting. Close combat had really brutal critical hits, meaning that a swarm of goblins was always dangerous. I let the dice fall as they did. It really colored my view on how things should work. I play pathfinder now and still think that it is a bloody shame that you can't mess up a spell so badly that you get your body and soul sucked into the realm of the dark gods or have an evil rune get perma branded onto you.
My absolute favorite miscast was for lesser spells, all food/wine in x yards spoils. Goodbye all travel rations or hello very angry villagers.
Though to be fair...you decided how much magic you were using. 1-4 dice could be used based on level. Doubles, triples and quadruples all had their own miscast table. So 1 dicing minor spells was safe. It made players think twice before waving magic around.
It was also a setting where all magic users are hated, elves are feared/seen as being legends, and where being literate was a really rare class trait.
Post 3rd edition tieflings suck. Most unimaginitive and corny designs in history. Tieflings are supossed to look unique each.
And while we are at it, Dragonborn suck, too. There are already Kobolds, there is no point for them. Goliaths seem pretty pointless as well, but I don't know enough about them to have a real opinion about them.
Also, Pillars of Eternity's Godlikes are the better Planetouched.
I think your opinions here are, as far as inclusion in FR goes, pretty popular ones among FR fans about as-written-in-core tieflings in the setting and dragonborn/goliath in the setting.
That said: the new 5e Sword Coast Adventurer's Guide includes new ideas for alternate appearance and powers for tieflings of different heritages than "Asmodeus" (and with no restriction tying powers or features to anything in particular, which I guess are old ideas rather than new ones lol) so at least in 5e FR they're more diverse than as written in the 5e PHB.
And while I personally don't like Goliaths in FR all that much, I don't mind them in Greyhawk and Eberron...and I actually kind of like Dragonborn being unto Kobolds as Taciturn Dwarves are unto Wacky Gnomes in the same way I like Dwarves and Gnomes being separate things (of separate size categories), but that's just my jam. Which makes the unpopular opinion in this response the one I have about Dragonborn, I think lmao
The Realms are corny, Ed Greenwood is corny, many setting elements from the core to the optional (like Egyptian/Babylonian Earth humans forming empires, the Spelljammer Realmspace stuff, etc) are really corny, gnomes are way cornier than dragonborn and they've been around for a while, and in Krynn pretty much half the races are cornier than the inspiration for dragonborn so it's a pretty ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ issue for me
The Realms are corny, Ed Greenwood is corny, many setting elements from the core to the optional (like Egyptian/Babylonian Earth humans forming empires, the Spelljammer Realmspace stuff, etc) are really corny, gnomes are way cornier than dragonborn and they've been around for a while, and in Krynn pretty much half the races are cornier than the inspiration for dragonborn so it's a pretty ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ issue for me
Agreed. Both on-topic and continuing the derailing: I like Dragonborn more than Drow. (ducks for cover)
I think drow make great villains (BG2 Underdark, Valsharess in NWN:HotU).
But I absolutely can't stand all the PC me-too Drizzt clones, and the "we're not evil, only misunderstood" drow characters like Viconia. I have never played a run using Viconia. I rescue her from being unfairly executed, and then send her packing. As a character that surfacers should believably be adventuring with, no. I absolutely can... not... *stand* her. Same for Baeloth.
When I see one of the many drow-lover threads around the forum, my eyes involuntarily roll, my head shakes, I heave a heavy sigh, and I find something else to read.
@BelgarathMTH while I agree with the sentiment as it pertains to my experiences with tabletop gaming (and it's far from an unpopular opinion with tabletop gamers sick of new players wanting to be an edgy tortured good guy drow exile), I don't see it in CRPGs/video games, and your examples are both of evil-aligned villains for a villainous CHARNAME to have accompany them as they cruelly tromp about the Sword Coast, so I'm a bit confused.
I do think that while drow make good villains (and better baddies than goodies), I've also experienced what feels like overuse as goodies in pen and paper gaming, even though the use has been fairly rare, in particular because I even more rarely see them used as baddies in home games, so when someone plays one it stands out. The Underdark, unless we were playing a written module or adventure placed there, is not a place most DMs I've played with have wanted to explore when there's so much surface to cover, and that's not just restricted to FR games I've played in (and when it's rare for the players themselves to have made characters who are all about going into the underdark, I can kind of see why a DM wouldn't bother, but it's weird when a fellow players is playing a drow ranger, literally designed for surviving down there, and the DM doesn't take us there). Although, to be fair, while the few times I've played with a drow have stood out to me for those reasons, it has actually only been a couple times (and only one time was the character a literal Drizzt clone, the other ones I can remember were both casters of some kind, but similar brooding personalities to Drizzt with "exiled because I'm good" backstories, when really it's far more likely they'd have been enslaved or executed, or enslaved then later executed if they kept trying to escape and "be too good").
But that's home game stuff, and just my personal experience. As to video games/computer games, I think they're way more often represented as foes and villains than they are as good characters, which I'm quite glad about, so I wouldn't say it's an unpopular opinion (unlike, say, liking dragonborn better than drow, which I agree with and probably is an unpopular opinion since drow as such are fun in the setting, especially as adversaries).
I can't think of any examples outside of appearances by Drizzt as an NPC for a bit, but maybe you can correct me on that. My impression is that they're overwhelmingly used as things to fight and kill in CRPGs, so I wouldn't say your opinion is unpopular, even with people making the games. I mean, we still haven't seen a good-aligned drow party member in the BG series and I doubt we will in the next game. So, although I got the impression you felt your unpopular opinion was that good-aligned drow were overrated (something I don't think is unpopular), I think the unpopular opinion in your post is actually that Viconia and Baeloth are good-aligned drow. Which, y'know, would be pretty unpopular given how they leave your party if you're too good and have Evil right there on their character sheets. I agree that drow make good villains (a popular opinion, as far as I'm aware), and while Viconia and Baeloth aren't exactly my evil party style personally I don't think they're "not villains" somehow just because I use other villains in my party.
But, to insert an unpopular opinion into my post, a few words in defense of the concept of good drow, even though it's one I personally avoid (under a cut since it's kind of a derailing):
Technically there's an entire faith (Eilistraee) whose worshipers consist of good drow, and she's been around since 2e at least, and it's been a part of the Realms timeline that there were good and neutral drow who helped out in the Shadow Wars and were granted above-land territory by elves in recognition that it wasn't drow as such but drow who follow Lolth that were the problem. It's still rare, since a majority of drow follow the drow pantheon under Lolth, and of those who don't the bulk follow other evil deities (like Viconia does with Shar) or else demon princes or archdevils or what have you, but I don't think it's entirely fair to say it's ridiculous to have there be drow that go against the grain since there's actually a ton of them...they just mostly become slaves in drow society and/or get killed.
It's been a thread in the setting since fairly early that drow are not innately evil, but their culture and the faith that maintains an iron grip on it tend to shape them in that direction in a million subtle ways while also swiftly crushing those who still don't conform even after all that. And nearly every novel dealing with drow in any way in FR, even the ones about the adventures of evil drow, goes into this! We almost always get dialogue discussing (or even scenes depicting) drow who are considered "weak" being enslaved or killed, and that weakness can be anywhere from "evil but didn't do it effectively enough" to "good and we can't tolerate that so an example will be made", and even Corellon considers Lolth his enemy rather than the drow qua drow, he feels sorrow that the drow are under her influence (which is why he forgave Eilistraee and gave her a place in the pantheon, even the drow-slayer elven god eventually found it in his heart to make an exception for Eilistraee and her followers because he too understands it's tyrannical deific corruption from above that maintains the dark elves' distance from their cousin subraces).
Now, this is all said with the grain of salt that I, too, find Drizzt clones (like, literal Drizzt clones: brooding, bad-azz, Good-aligned, dual-wielding ranger drow) to be a bit much, and I also think drow are overrated (and like dragonborn more than drow as @Malicron said earlier lmao, I probably also like literally every deep core race variant more than the one for elves and if there were deep halflings I'd like them more too).
But I think it's a bit unfair to say non-evil drow are too rare or unusual to have someone play one as a character...I mean, PCs are supposed to be unique heroes anyway so rarity isn't an issue for PC character creation, but that said if one of the party are part of an extended metaphorical family of drow with thousands of years of heritage behind them, brothers and sisters in bondage in literally every drow city of the Underdark, a goddess who has enough worshippers to be a lesser deity rather than just a demipower, etc...it's still a unique enough character without being one in a trillion rare (as long as they don't go for a literal Drizzt clone). I wouldn't personally go for it, not my style or flavour, but seeing other people enjoy the concept of playing a neutral or good drow doesn't bother me (again, unless it's a literal brooding Drizzt clone) and feels very Realms-appropriate for a PC concept.
Comments
So the power of that essence would mainly be to renforce the body to make it more "lively"
1) A swashbuckler is a flashy, romantic pirate-like thief who performs amazing feats of sword parrying and dodging.
Imoen is a cheerful, curious sharp-minded thief who would rather use a bow from a distance ,keep an eye on traps and avoid unwanted attention.
"Both wouldn't go backtabbing people" isn't really a strong argument.
2) A skald is nordic warlike bard from a culture that privileges oral traditions over written language.
Garrick is a true bard who sings, knows a little magic and loves to learn and experience.
3) A blade is a bard who instead of singing performs blade dances in gracious and intimidating poses, they might also work as assassins . They focus their proficiencies on bladed and throwing weapons.
Eldoth is an opportunistic evil bard who uses his great charisma to manipulate others. Even though he might be strong (and sexy) , he would rather avoid combat (for his own sake) or have others fight for him. His famous "poison arrows" ability reveals that he is more likely to use a bow .
So, really, how blade-ish is he?
Popular opinion: I like 5e more, though.
Most unimaginitive and corny designs in history.
Tieflings are supossed to look unique each.
And while we are at it, Dragonborn suck, too.
There are already Kobolds, there is no point for them.
Goliaths seem pretty pointless as well, but I don't know enough about them to have a real opinion about them.
Also, Pillars of Eternity's Godlikes are the better Planetouched.
Other than that they can leave it untouched (I wouldn't even buy it if they add new stuff, the game's just TOO perfect (if we leave combat aside tbh, oh, and all of Beamdog's stuff had great combat (great combat = fun to play) so IMO they could fiddle a bit with that without making the rest of Ps:T feel different) for anyone to touch it.
/threadhijack
My absolute favorite miscast was for lesser spells, all food/wine in x yards spoils. Goodbye all travel rations or hello very angry villagers.
Though to be fair...you decided how much magic you were using. 1-4 dice could be used based on level. Doubles, triples and quadruples all had their own miscast table. So 1 dicing minor spells was safe. It made players think twice before waving magic around.
It was also a setting where all magic users are hated, elves are feared/seen as being legends, and where being literate was a really rare class trait.
Aaaah how I miss it.
That said: the new 5e Sword Coast Adventurer's Guide includes new ideas for alternate appearance and powers for tieflings of different heritages than "Asmodeus" (and with no restriction tying powers or features to anything in particular, which I guess are old ideas rather than new ones lol) so at least in 5e FR they're more diverse than as written in the 5e PHB.
And while I personally don't like Goliaths in FR all that much, I don't mind them in Greyhawk and Eberron...and I actually kind of like Dragonborn being unto Kobolds as Taciturn Dwarves are unto Wacky Gnomes in the same way I like Dwarves and Gnomes being separate things (of separate size categories), but that's just my jam. Which makes the unpopular opinion in this response the one I have about Dragonborn, I think lmao
Both on-topic and continuing the derailing: I like Dragonborn more than Drow. (ducks for cover)
I think drow make great villains (BG2 Underdark, Valsharess in NWN:HotU).
But I absolutely can't stand all the PC me-too Drizzt clones, and the "we're not evil, only misunderstood" drow characters like Viconia. I have never played a run using Viconia. I rescue her from being unfairly executed, and then send her packing. As a character that surfacers should believably be adventuring with, no. I absolutely can... not... *stand* her. Same for Baeloth.
When I see one of the many drow-lover threads around the forum, my eyes involuntarily roll, my head shakes, I heave a heavy sigh, and I find something else to read.
(also ducks for cover)
Then in BG2 she can be redeemed. It's a pretty cool arc, actually.
I do think that while drow make good villains (and better baddies than goodies), I've also experienced what feels like overuse as goodies in pen and paper gaming, even though the use has been fairly rare, in particular because I even more rarely see them used as baddies in home games, so when someone plays one it stands out. The Underdark, unless we were playing a written module or adventure placed there, is not a place most DMs I've played with have wanted to explore when there's so much surface to cover, and that's not just restricted to FR games I've played in (and when it's rare for the players themselves to have made characters who are all about going into the underdark, I can kind of see why a DM wouldn't bother, but it's weird when a fellow players is playing a drow ranger, literally designed for surviving down there, and the DM doesn't take us there). Although, to be fair, while the few times I've played with a drow have stood out to me for those reasons, it has actually only been a couple times (and only one time was the character a literal Drizzt clone, the other ones I can remember were both casters of some kind, but similar brooding personalities to Drizzt with "exiled because I'm good" backstories, when really it's far more likely they'd have been enslaved or executed, or enslaved then later executed if they kept trying to escape and "be too good").
But that's home game stuff, and just my personal experience. As to video games/computer games, I think they're way more often represented as foes and villains than they are as good characters, which I'm quite glad about, so I wouldn't say it's an unpopular opinion (unlike, say, liking dragonborn better than drow, which I agree with and probably is an unpopular opinion since drow as such are fun in the setting, especially as adversaries).
I can't think of any examples outside of appearances by Drizzt as an NPC for a bit, but maybe you can correct me on that. My impression is that they're overwhelmingly used as things to fight and kill in CRPGs, so I wouldn't say your opinion is unpopular, even with people making the games. I mean, we still haven't seen a good-aligned drow party member in the BG series and I doubt we will in the next game. So, although I got the impression you felt your unpopular opinion was that good-aligned drow were overrated (something I don't think is unpopular), I think the unpopular opinion in your post is actually that Viconia and Baeloth are good-aligned drow. Which, y'know, would be pretty unpopular given how they leave your party if you're too good and have Evil right there on their character sheets. I agree that drow make good villains (a popular opinion, as far as I'm aware), and while Viconia and Baeloth aren't exactly my evil party style personally I don't think they're "not villains" somehow just because I use other villains in my party.
But, to insert an unpopular opinion into my post, a few words in defense of the concept of good drow, even though it's one I personally avoid (under a cut since it's kind of a derailing):
It's been a thread in the setting since fairly early that drow are not innately evil, but their culture and the faith that maintains an iron grip on it tend to shape them in that direction in a million subtle ways while also swiftly crushing those who still don't conform even after all that. And nearly every novel dealing with drow in any way in FR, even the ones about the adventures of evil drow, goes into this! We almost always get dialogue discussing (or even scenes depicting) drow who are considered "weak" being enslaved or killed, and that weakness can be anywhere from "evil but didn't do it effectively enough" to "good and we can't tolerate that so an example will be made", and even Corellon considers Lolth his enemy rather than the drow qua drow, he feels sorrow that the drow are under her influence (which is why he forgave Eilistraee and gave her a place in the pantheon, even the drow-slayer elven god eventually found it in his heart to make an exception for Eilistraee and her followers because he too understands it's tyrannical deific corruption from above that maintains the dark elves' distance from their cousin subraces).
Now, this is all said with the grain of salt that I, too, find Drizzt clones (like, literal Drizzt clones: brooding, bad-azz, Good-aligned, dual-wielding ranger drow) to be a bit much, and I also think drow are overrated (and like dragonborn more than drow as @Malicron said earlier lmao, I probably also like literally every deep core race variant more than the one for elves and if there were deep halflings I'd like them more too).
But I think it's a bit unfair to say non-evil drow are too rare or unusual to have someone play one as a character...I mean, PCs are supposed to be unique heroes anyway so rarity isn't an issue for PC character creation, but that said if one of the party are part of an extended metaphorical family of drow with thousands of years of heritage behind them, brothers and sisters in bondage in literally every drow city of the Underdark, a goddess who has enough worshippers to be a lesser deity rather than just a demipower, etc...it's still a unique enough character without being one in a trillion rare (as long as they don't go for a literal Drizzt clone). I wouldn't personally go for it, not my style or flavour, but seeing other people enjoy the concept of playing a neutral or good drow doesn't bother me (again, unless it's a literal brooding Drizzt clone) and feels very Realms-appropriate for a PC concept.