BG1: Ogres, Spiders or Hobgoblins. Usually I pick spiders, cause its fun pretending that my ranger would go around candlekeep when she was younger squashing them
BG2: Normally I pick dragons (of course, usually I run a cavalier), but I could easily see myself picking Demons as well. I've also done beholders, illithids and liches at some point as well.
Well, how about you get Tiamat and the evil chromatic dragons in line, and then Bahamut and I won't have to keep making them favored enemies, or endorsing paladins in their name to kill them.
And the Dragonspear name is based off Dragoons. I merely imitate draconic fighting styles
I kind of mentioned it in the OP, but I picked Golems for BG2 not just because of their inherent toughness, but because they nerf other options a Ranger has. If you're facing a demon, a stalker can backstab, and any ranger can kite them, so the usual tactics work fine. A golem forces you to take it head-on, and there's no point in kiting a clay golem when it's immune to your ranged attacks. If you're going head-to-head with those, then I think you need the bonus more.
If you're soloing with a Ranger, then yes, I agree that this is a solid reason for picking Golems, because you'll have to use your Ranger in melee against them.
With a party, it's less convincing, because you've usually got some melee specialist with you, who can step up to the Golem instead of your Ranger having to do so. I'd generally rather have my Ranger specialising in an enemy which he can attack at range.
@Dragonspear Who is a greater deity long side Lolth, Talos, and cyric. Unlike Bahamut and Tiamat, you'd expect greater deties wanting to keep other greater deities in check.
More like speciesists. To make things worse: weak rangers like Minsc or Valygar can't even do a single round-house kick.
Na, racist was the correct term, the better stay away from my dragons or else!
@Kamigoroshi I've had the same thought but @DragonKing is correct since everyone can copulate with anyone else and have a fertile offspring. Effectively, it is a single species and multiple races.
If someone knows what can have a fertile offspring with what and what can't (providing it is coherent), we may be able to class D&D characters into species and races. For now, "race" sounds like the apropriate term.
More like speciesists. To make things worse: weak rangers like Minsc or Valygar can't even do a single round-house kick.
Na, racist was the correct term, the better stay away from my dragons or else!
@Kamigoroshi I've had the same thought but @DragonKing is correct since everyone can copulate with anyone else and have a fertile offspring. Effectively, it is a single species and multiple races.
If someone knows what can have a fertile offspring with what and what can't (providing it is coherent), we may be able to class D&D characters into species and races. For now, "race" sounds like the apropriate term.
No, that is not correct. Elves can't create offsprings with Orcs. Neither can Half-Elves with Half-Orcs. And while Orcs and Goblinoids can theoretically bear offsprings, their children will become infertile. Which effectively makes them different species altogether.
Halflings, Dwarves and Gnomes can't create offsprings with any "race" (read species) other than their own. The only exception are mystical creatures, where their own passed down DNA is then "overwritten" by magical chromosomes (think of true dragons, planars, fay, ect.). But that goes for pretty much every mortal species as well, not just shorties.
As far as the Ranger's favored enemies is concerned: it's still speciecism. Not even Humans, the most fertile species, can create offsprings with Carrion Crawlers, Ettercaps, Ghouls, Gibberlings, Gnolls, Hobgoblins, Kobolds, Skeletons, Giant Spiders, Beholders, Elementals, Golems, Liches, Mind Flayers, Otyugh, Sahuagin, Shadows, Kuo-toa, Oozes, Umberhulks and Trolls after all. Without undergoing arcane Frankenstein-ish experiments, that is.
The only real, non-magical exception would be Ogres here. Given that Half-Ogres which are born from humans do indeed exist in the Forgotten Realms. But I still wouldn't go as far as saying that Humans and Ogres are of the same species. Especially since the chances of infertility is just as large as with Ogrillons.
The proper definition of "species" is a topic of continuing argument in biology, it's a surprisingly slippery concept to pin down precisely.
Being able to breed together is a crude and long-obsolete suggestion. Being able to breed together and have fertile offspring is a slightly more useful definition, but it turns out that some hybrids between clearly-distinct species are nevertheless fertile hybrids, so that definition doesn't work either. (And it also turns out that some pairings between different populations of what clearly appears to be the same species can nevertheless be inherently infertile, which also invalidates this definition.) But then there are all the species which reproduce by asexual means (parthenogenesis, etc.), where "breeding together" doesn't apply at all.
Probably the only way we'll ever arrive at a general and consistent definition of "species" will be based on molecular analysis of DNA, but the molecular biologists haven't yet arrived at agreed criteria for what does (or doesn't) constitute a separate species. There'll undoubtedly be a Nobel Prize handed out when someone develops a satisfactory answer to this question, but it hasn't yet been achieved.
On the simplistic basis of "you know it when you see it", I reckon the various sentient "races" of Faerun are all different species, not just races within the same species, but there's no definitive answer because there's no adequate definition.
It's therefore rather a pointless argument. The proper answer is "we don't know".
Oooh. Illithids are tedious. I imagine Human is a consistently legitimate choice across both games, however. Is it a choice? Or have I dipped into 3.5E there?
In fact, might I in a moment of humble ignorance ask: what benefits does a Ranger get when they fight their favoured enemy in BG?
Favored enemy should be +4 to hit and damage against the favored enemy.
And I know Humans, Elves, Dwarves, etc were legit choices even in AD&D. But you also could only pick your own race if you were evil. So maybe it was 3e.
Comments
BG2: Normally I pick dragons (of course, usually I run a cavalier), but I could easily see myself picking Demons as well. I've also done beholders, illithids and liches at some point as well.
You don't deserve that name!
Well, how about you get Tiamat and the evil chromatic dragons in line, and then Bahamut and I won't have to keep making them favored enemies, or endorsing paladins in their name to kill them.
And the Dragonspear name is based off Dragoons. I merely imitate draconic fighting styles
I'll get tiamat in line when you all get Cyric, Talos, and Lolth all in line!
With a party, it's less convincing, because you've usually got some melee specialist with you, who can step up to the Golem instead of your Ranger having to do so. I'd generally rather have my Ranger specialising in an enemy which he can attack at range.
Don't look at me, I'm a paladin of Mystra
Who is a greater deity long side Lolth, Talos, and cyric. Unlike Bahamut and Tiamat, you'd expect greater deties wanting to keep other greater deities in check.
To make things worse: weak rangers like Minsc or Valygar can't even do a single round-house kick.
If someone knows what can have a fertile offspring with what and what can't (providing it is coherent), we may be able to class D&D characters into species and races. For now, "race" sounds like the apropriate term.
Elves can't create offsprings with Orcs. Neither can Half-Elves with Half-Orcs. And while Orcs and Goblinoids can theoretically bear offsprings, their children will become infertile. Which effectively makes them different species altogether.
Halflings, Dwarves and Gnomes can't create offsprings with any "race" (read species) other than their own. The only exception are mystical creatures, where their own passed down DNA is then "overwritten" by magical chromosomes (think of true dragons, planars, fay, ect.). But that goes for pretty much every mortal species as well, not just shorties.
As far as the Ranger's favored enemies is concerned: it's still speciecism. Not even Humans, the most fertile species, can create offsprings with Carrion Crawlers, Ettercaps, Ghouls, Gibberlings, Gnolls, Hobgoblins, Kobolds, Skeletons, Giant Spiders, Beholders, Elementals, Golems, Liches, Mind Flayers, Otyugh, Sahuagin, Shadows, Kuo-toa, Oozes, Umberhulks and Trolls after all. Without undergoing arcane Frankenstein-ish experiments, that is.
The only real, non-magical exception would be Ogres here. Given that Half-Ogres which are born from humans do indeed exist in the Forgotten Realms. But I still wouldn't go as far as saying that Humans and Ogres are of the same species. Especially since the chances of infertility is just as large as with Ogrillons.
Being able to breed together is a crude and long-obsolete suggestion. Being able to breed together and have fertile offspring is a slightly more useful definition, but it turns out that some hybrids between clearly-distinct species are nevertheless fertile hybrids, so that definition doesn't work either. (And it also turns out that some pairings between different populations of what clearly appears to be the same species can nevertheless be inherently infertile, which also invalidates this definition.) But then there are all the species which reproduce by asexual means (parthenogenesis, etc.), where "breeding together" doesn't apply at all.
Probably the only way we'll ever arrive at a general and consistent definition of "species" will be based on molecular analysis of DNA, but the molecular biologists haven't yet arrived at agreed criteria for what does (or doesn't) constitute a separate species. There'll undoubtedly be a Nobel Prize handed out when someone develops a satisfactory answer to this question, but it hasn't yet been achieved.
On the simplistic basis of "you know it when you see it", I reckon the various sentient "races" of Faerun are all different species, not just races within the same species, but there's no definitive answer because there's no adequate definition.
It's therefore rather a pointless argument. The proper answer is "we don't know".
And all this is getting hugely off-topic!
EDIT: With their big, dumb golem parts.
In fact, might I in a moment of humble ignorance ask: what benefits does a Ranger get when they fight their favoured enemy in BG?
Favored enemy should be +4 to hit and damage against the favored enemy.
And I know Humans, Elves, Dwarves, etc were legit choices even in AD&D. But you also could only pick your own race if you were evil. So maybe it was 3e.
Liches get stitches
Ogres would be my second choice for BG1, but since Kivan is a staple of my good-aligned parties, picking them would usually be redundant for me.
I don't play BG2 much, but for IWD I usually pick giants.