Korgan because berserker, Saravok is better statswise and his rng deathbringer dmg is really good but none of that compares to berserk.
Plus Korgan can quite easily 'start' ToB with alot more experience than Sarevok. And if you don't plan for him specifically, Sarevok will have subpar equipment compared to Korgan.
Sarevok is a plain, unkitted fighter, but he's nearly a Charname in himself when you look at his stats, unique ability, and overall importance to the plot.
Sarevok is a plain, unkitted fighter, but he's nearly a Charname in himself when you look at his stats, unique ability, and overall importance to the plot.
It depends, my actual charname has 11 less then him in the total of the stats and lacks also that /00, even if is a multi with a fighter component in it. To roll his total is not easy, to roll his total in a dice throw that has also that 18/00 need an auto roller, a lot of time or an incredible luck. Also the way that those stats are mixmaxed is relevant, almost perfect stats for a fighter but also the only fighter NPC able to dual into mage or thief, He only lacks a 17 in wis to be dualed also in cleric. I would rather say that he has the stats of a powergamer's charname, not the ones of an average one.
Somehow she is so, as Arvoreen granted her some special abilities and weapons. But she is not an actual paladin, thing that is her impossible desire, because only humans are allowed to be paladins.
I think she fulfills the heart of a paladin perfectly, titles are not everything.
Titles definitely aren't everything, as Miko of OotS proves. She's a "samurai" without being a "samurai class." Class abilities, though, are definitely everything. If Mazzy was one, that would have been amazing for a 2e game. Heck, it'd be amazing now. Nobody really thinks "Halfling Paladin," though you could totally do a finesse Lightfoot Halfling one.
I kind of prefer it this way honestly. This may not have been intentional, but it highlights how ridiculous 2e restrictions are. Mazzy holds up the paladin ideal more than pretty much every paladin seen through the entire bg series. She teaches that what you are comes from the heart darn it, not a title.
@chimaera I always figured she was. Isn't she supposed to be a Truesword of Arvoreen?
She is a fighter with paladin-like abilities, which is not quite the same. But I guess they couldn't make her a proper paladin, because WotC would probably be against it.
WotC was in charge of Editions 3 through 5, and in all of those you can play a halfling paladin. It's TSR you're thinking of who didn't like anyone but humans being paladins. That was in the last century.
@chimaera I always figured she was. Isn't she supposed to be a Truesword of Arvoreen?
She is a fighter with paladin-like abilities, which is not quite the same. But I guess they couldn't make her a proper paladin, because WotC would probably be against it.
WotC was in charge of Editions 3 through 5, and in all of those you can play a halfling paladin. It's TSR you're thinking of who didn't like anyone but humans being paladins. That was in the last century.
@chimaera I always figured she was. Isn't she supposed to be a Truesword of Arvoreen?
She is a fighter with paladin-like abilities, which is not quite the same. But I guess they couldn't make her a proper paladin, because WotC would probably be against it.
WotC was in charge of Editions 3 through 5, and in all of those you can play a halfling paladin. It's TSR you're thinking of who didn't like anyone but humans being paladins. That was in the last century.
Back when it was actually Dungeons and Dragons
Pretty sure dungeons and dragons are still included.
I know hardliner 2e folks (including my very first D&D DM!) who never adapted to 3.5 and 4e but were part of the D&D Next open playtest for 5e and now have regular 5e games. I'm someone who hated 4e but quite like 3.5 and Pathfinder still, and I love 5e. It's weird how much I'm seeing 5e bring fans of multiple editions together, to be honest! Which isn't to say every member of my old DM's 2e group is in his 5e group, some of 'em stick to their guns.
My friend's dad won't play anything except his original 1970s OD&D boxed set (not the original original box from '74, he has the "Original Collector's Edition" which is from the late 70s). He has all the supplements too, my friend ran me and some other friends (in this century!) through a brief Blackmoor campaign using the original ruleset and DMPC'd a Psion using the Eldritch Wizardry rules that was way overpowered compared to us lmao
I know that friend's dad hates 2e and hasn't looked at any edition since 2e came out because of how much he hated it. There are edition warriors every edition.
Doesn't make the new edition not Dungeons and Dragons, just makes each new edition not some stubborn grognard's cup of tea, and I only really respect my buddy's dad for never deviating from OD&D on that position. It's not like 2e grognards are harkening back to original purity like he is, and I always found 3.5 grognards insufferable even though I also hated 4e. I hated it because the mechanics and flavour of 4e were terrible, not because 3.5 was the pinnacle of game design lmao I'm always open to new rules designed by professionals in the industry, and 5e is way more balanced than either 2e or 3.5 and evokes a feel that is more akin to OD&D and 2e than any other edition IMHO, just with a better ruleset workshopped by players and DMs around the world alongside the designers, whose criticism helped the designers make a really good edition.
But hey, I've got edition warrior grognards for friends, and I love 'em dearly. It's not like you can't still run the previous editions as new ones come out, eh? Why not! They're all fun in their own way.
Being a Fighter you can be a guard, a robber or whatever. Being a Thief you can be a robber, a burgler, an adventurer or whatever. Being a Paladin you can only be a paladin? Cause really, how can you be a paladin if you are not within i paladin order?
This is one of the oddities of BG and 2ed, the mix of class and profession for some classes but not for others. There's prolly good reason for it, but in my head I remove all such nonsense and make whomever I want whichever class I want, no matter the race.
A bit more on-topic, being a fighter it annoys me a bit that Mazzy starts with shortbow instead of sling proficiency. Being the only on really to be able to get GM in slings with the halfling bonus would be epic (it is, I've keepered and tried it). Mazzy with GM in slings kills most things before Korgan reaches them.
Give to Korgan the boots of speed I am only joking, the high damage of a sling combined with GM damage bonus, STR bonus and the +2APR of a fighter is really strong. Not always, but many times I change the proficiency allocations of the NPCs, as long as I don't give to them impossible ones I find it a good way to give a different tactical taste to the NPCs in the different runs.
@gorgonzola, exactly. I don't give prof's restricted to their class, like faking in swords to a cleric (even though I think they should be able to weild them!) but I often change a bit to get a new feel.
Even giving to a cleric proficiency in swords don't allow them to weld them, so is not the better example, but you got exactly my point. Giving to a thief proficiency in long bows, or in 2H sword (waiting for UAI and planning to give him the pally only one) are more appropriate examples.
Even giving to a cleric proficiency in swords don't allow them to weld them, so is not the better example, but you got exactly my point. Giving to a thief proficiency in long bows, or in 2H sword (waiting for UAI and planning to give him the pally only one) are more appropriate examples.
You can add UAI in keeper as well while you change the proficencies. If nothing else, you can force equip items in keeper to override the "red" item restrictions. But like I said, I don't use it for NPC's.
We can, but adding an illegal UAI or force equip at each level up is a manipulation of the game of a completely different level. probably we can even give GM to each party member and add the related APRs even if they are not fighters if we know a little about advanced use of EEkeeper. I assumed we was talking of giving to Mazzy GM in sling or to Imoen an initial proficiency in katana, things that are legal for the class and don't alter the expected number of proficiency.
I assumed we was talking of giving to Mazzy GM in sling or to Imoen an initial proficiency in katana, things that are legal for the class and don't alter the expected number of proficiency.
Hehe, we are and that was exactly my point - that I am ok with altering weapon prof's for NPC's as long as they follow the base class restrictions. It seems you and I are perfectly aligned in this opinion, so I think we can leave it at that
I know hardliner 2e folks (including my very first D&D DM!) who never adapted to 3.5 and 4e but were part of the D&D Next open playtest for 5e and now have regular 5e games. I'm someone who hated 4e but quite like 3.5 and Pathfinder still, and I love 5e. It's weird how much I'm seeing 5e bring fans of multiple editions together, to be honest! Which isn't to say every member of my old DM's 2e group is in his 5e group, some of 'em stick to their guns.
My friend's dad won't play anything except his original 1970s OD&D boxed set (not the original original box from '74, he has the "Original Collector's Edition" which is from the late 70s). He has all the supplements too, my friend ran me and some other friends (in this century!) through a brief Blackmoor campaign using the original ruleset and DMPC'd a Psion using the Eldritch Wizardry rules that was way overpowered compared to us lmao
I know that friend's dad hates 2e and hasn't looked at any edition since 2e came out because of how much he hated it. There are edition warriors every edition.
Doesn't make the new edition not Dungeons and Dragons, just makes each new edition not some stubborn grognard's cup of tea, and I only really respect my buddy's dad for never deviating from OD&D on that position. It's not like 2e grognards are harkening back to original purity like he is, and I always found 3.5 grognards insufferable even though I also hated 4e. I hated it because the mechanics and flavour of 4e were terrible, not because 3.5 was the pinnacle of game design lmao I'm always open to new rules designed by professionals in the industry, and 5e is way more balanced than either 2e or 3.5 and evokes a feel that is more akin to OD&D and 2e than any other edition IMHO, just with a better ruleset workshopped by players and DMs around the world alongside the designers, whose criticism helped the designers make a really good edition.
But hey, I've got edition warrior grognards for friends, and I love 'em dearly. It's not like you can't still run the previous editions as new ones come out, eh? Why not! They're all fun in their own way.
I like 5e a lot, but it has the same problems as 3.5e had. The magic users supremacy, i ill of it, and i used to tired to be dm at 3.5 because of it, that was the point when my group changed from dnd after year of playing. Than we played wod games, and free homemade system, and where i live there is a "famous" adnd 2 featured rpg game, the m.a.g.u.s. which was the most played in my country
@Danacm I actually find, somewhat like @Raduziel but with a caveat, that the difference of power between warriors and spellcasters was much reduced from 2e being lopsided toward warriors, but I actually think 3.x went too hard in the other direction, making Clerics and Druids in particular, even using only the PHB and DMG, completely overpowered compared to every other class (even Wizards, which come in at a 2nd after their 1st place tie), so it just swung the unbalancing in the other direction.
But 4e equalized everything with completely crap mechanics. A couple good ideas in there, but it's like a couple good apples baked into an apple pie made with rotten maggoty apples, the taste of the good ideas didn't come through.
5e, on the other hand, maintains the balance and tastes like a fusion of the best ideas from 2e (and earlier) and 3.x/PF to me, without trying to be a sequel to either. The classes are very balanced with one another, aside from the warlock which seems a half-step more powerful than everything else IMHO but other people argue that's not the case and provide builds of other classes to prove it...I just think it's EASIER to make those builds, and have them hit their stride earlier, with the warlock. Aside from that the classes are all really decently balanced with one another and good at their roles enough to make each of them attractive (i.e. unlike 3.x you don't find yourself going "hey we need a fighter? I'll just play a cleric or druid and select my spells differently that day. we need a party face? got that covered too, just lemme sleep for 8 hours. we need a rogue? gotcha covered, no problem, I'm a cleric/druid, it's all good." since all the 5e roles are better established as the best at what they do mechanically)
Comments
But she is not an actual paladin, thing that is her impossible desire, because only humans are allowed to be paladins.
When extra mods come to table I turn her into a Truesword of Arvoreen
My friend's dad won't play anything except his original 1970s OD&D boxed set (not the original original box from '74, he has the "Original Collector's Edition" which is from the late 70s). He has all the supplements too, my friend ran me and some other friends (in this century!) through a brief Blackmoor campaign using the original ruleset and DMPC'd a Psion using the Eldritch Wizardry rules that was way overpowered compared to us lmao
I know that friend's dad hates 2e and hasn't looked at any edition since 2e came out because of how much he hated it. There are edition warriors every edition.
Doesn't make the new edition not Dungeons and Dragons, just makes each new edition not some stubborn grognard's cup of tea, and I only really respect my buddy's dad for never deviating from OD&D on that position. It's not like 2e grognards are harkening back to original purity like he is, and I always found 3.5 grognards insufferable even though I also hated 4e. I hated it because the mechanics and flavour of 4e were terrible, not because 3.5 was the pinnacle of game design lmao I'm always open to new rules designed by professionals in the industry, and 5e is way more balanced than either 2e or 3.5 and evokes a feel that is more akin to OD&D and 2e than any other edition IMHO, just with a better ruleset workshopped by players and DMs around the world alongside the designers, whose criticism helped the designers make a really good edition.
But hey, I've got edition warrior grognards for friends, and I love 'em dearly. It's not like you can't still run the previous editions as new ones come out, eh? Why not! They're all fun in their own way.
Being a Thief you can be a robber, a burgler, an adventurer or whatever.
Being a Paladin you can only be a paladin? Cause really, how can you be a paladin if you are not within i paladin order?
This is one of the oddities of BG and 2ed, the mix of class and profession for some classes but not for others. There's prolly good reason for it, but in my head I remove all such nonsense and make whomever I want whichever class I want, no matter the race.
A bit more on-topic, being a fighter it annoys me a bit that Mazzy starts with shortbow instead of sling proficiency. Being the only on really to be able to get GM in slings with the halfling bonus would be epic (it is, I've keepered and tried it). Mazzy with GM in slings kills most things before Korgan reaches them.
I am only joking, the high damage of a sling combined with GM damage bonus, STR bonus and the +2APR of a fighter is really strong.
Not always, but many times I change the proficiency allocations of the NPCs, as long as I don't give to them impossible ones I find it a good way to give a different tactical taste to the NPCs in the different runs.
I assumed we was talking of giving to Mazzy GM in sling or to Imoen an initial proficiency in katana, things that are legal for the class and don't alter the expected number of proficiency.
1. Romance (best of the vanilla IMO)
2. Druid
AD&D was hugely favorable to casters. The Fighter, after lv 9, basically just gained 3 HP and -1 Thac0, while a spellcaster power keeps scaling.
The introduction of Feats solved that IMO.
Vicious, low maintenance muscle who does insane damage and shrugs off everything when you're busy micromanaging more nuanced characters.
But 4e equalized everything with completely crap mechanics. A couple good ideas in there, but it's like a couple good apples baked into an apple pie made with rotten maggoty apples, the taste of the good ideas didn't come through.
5e, on the other hand, maintains the balance and tastes like a fusion of the best ideas from 2e (and earlier) and 3.x/PF to me, without trying to be a sequel to either. The classes are very balanced with one another, aside from the warlock which seems a half-step more powerful than everything else IMHO but other people argue that's not the case and provide builds of other classes to prove it...I just think it's EASIER to make those builds, and have them hit their stride earlier, with the warlock. Aside from that the classes are all really decently balanced with one another and good at their roles enough to make each of them attractive (i.e. unlike 3.x you don't find yourself going "hey we need a fighter? I'll just play a cleric or druid and select my spells differently that day. we need a party face? got that covered too, just lemme sleep for 8 hours. we need a rogue? gotcha covered, no problem, I'm a cleric/druid, it's all good." since all the 5e roles are better established as the best at what they do mechanically)