Skip to content

Baldur's Gate Logic

1323335373877

Comments

  • lroumenlroumen Member Posts: 2,538
    Ah right. I mixed them up. It's been a while since I played iwd2.
  • Dev6Dev6 Member Posts: 721

    It takes special training to learn to aim a crossbow.

    No, it takes special training to be able to handle the recoil so you don't miss your target.

    a-HA!!!
  • ChroniclerChronicler Member Posts: 1,391
    Balrog99 said:

    Baldur's Gate Proficiency Logic:

    A fighter with grandmastery in maces has no idea how to swing a club.

    A fighter with grandmastery in katanas has no idea how to swing a wakizashi.

    A fighter with grandmastery in scimitars knows exactly how to fight with a ninja-to.

    The difference between a long sword and a bastard sword is the same as the difference between a halberd and a flail.

    It takes special training to learn to aim a crossbow.

    Don't forget that there's absolutely no way that a wizard or sorcerer could ever learn how to wield a sword or even a club. They can learn complex spells that involve specific gestures and arcane vocabulary but are so bad with anything but the most rudimentary weapons that they can't even use them at all. I guess they must be idiot savants...
    Well, they could, they just wouldn't exclusively be a wizard anymore. You'd have to put some fighter levels on their character sheet.
  • Balrog99Balrog99 Member Posts: 7,371

    Balrog99 said:

    Baldur's Gate Proficiency Logic:

    A fighter with grandmastery in maces has no idea how to swing a club.

    A fighter with grandmastery in katanas has no idea how to swing a wakizashi.

    A fighter with grandmastery in scimitars knows exactly how to fight with a ninja-to.

    The difference between a long sword and a bastard sword is the same as the difference between a halberd and a flail.

    It takes special training to learn to aim a crossbow.

    Don't forget that there's absolutely no way that a wizard or sorcerer could ever learn how to wield a sword or even a club. They can learn complex spells that involve specific gestures and arcane vocabulary but are so bad with anything but the most rudimentary weapons that they can't even use them at all. I guess they must be idiot savants...
    Well, they could, they just wouldn't exclusively be a wizard anymore. You'd have to put some fighter levels on their character sheet.
    That's only true if you're a human. It's far too difficult for an elf, gnome or even a half-elf to learn.
  • ZaramMaldovarZaramMaldovar Member Posts: 2,309
    @JoenSo
    The sling or the wizard? Because I could totally see Montaron throwing Xzar.
  • ChroniclerChronicler Member Posts: 1,391
    Balrog99 said:

    Balrog99 said:

    Baldur's Gate Proficiency Logic:

    A fighter with grandmastery in maces has no idea how to swing a club.

    A fighter with grandmastery in katanas has no idea how to swing a wakizashi.

    A fighter with grandmastery in scimitars knows exactly how to fight with a ninja-to.

    The difference between a long sword and a bastard sword is the same as the difference between a halberd and a flail.

    It takes special training to learn to aim a crossbow.

    Don't forget that there's absolutely no way that a wizard or sorcerer could ever learn how to wield a sword or even a club. They can learn complex spells that involve specific gestures and arcane vocabulary but are so bad with anything but the most rudimentary weapons that they can't even use them at all. I guess they must be idiot savants...
    Well, they could, they just wouldn't exclusively be a wizard anymore. You'd have to put some fighter levels on their character sheet.
    That's only true if you're a human. It's far too difficult for an elf, gnome or even a half-elf to learn.
    They can all multiclass...
  • Balrog99Balrog99 Member Posts: 7,371
    @Chronicler

    Not sorcerers of any race, or single-class wizards/specialist wizards of any race but human. A fighter/mage or M/T, C/M, FMT or FMC isn't really a mage any more than a bard is.
  • ChroniclerChronicler Member Posts: 1,391
    Right, but a "Mage" is just the word you use to describe people who've learned mage skills.

    If they learn fighter skills then they're also a fighter.

    There's nothing stopping your character from learning the skills of multiple classes, but if you choose to do so then you are those classes.
  • Balrog99Balrog99 Member Posts: 7,371

    Right, but a "Mage" is just the word you use to describe people who've learned mage skills.

    If they learn fighter skills then they're also a fighter.

    There's nothing stopping your character from learning the skills of multiple classes, but if you choose to do so then you are those classes.

    In AD&D 2.0 there is something stopping your character. If you choose to be a wizard or sorcerer you can't be a fighter unless you're human and dual-class. Therefore you can only learn sling, dart, dagger or quarterstaff and no weapon styles. Period...
  • ChroniclerChronicler Member Posts: 1,391
    Literally the only thing stopping you is that at the start of the game you chose not to.
  • ChroniclerChronicler Member Posts: 1,391
    edited April 2018
    If you choose to be exclusively a mage then that means you've ruled the possibility of your character learning other classes skills. I don't see what's so difficult about this.

    At the start of the game you choose from multiple narrow paths of study your character will choose to go down. If you want to go down more than one path then you need to choose more than one path.
  • Balrog99Balrog99 Member Posts: 7,371

    If you choose to be exclusively a mage then that means you've ruled the possibility of your character learning other classes skills. I don't see what's so difficult about this.

    At the start of the game you choose from multiple narrow paths of study your character will choose to go down. If you want to go down more than one path then you need to choose more than one path.

    My question is why is a club harder to use than a dagger? Or a mace than a quarterstaff? Is a sling easier to use than a crossbow? I can see if wizards all start out as shepherds then staffs and slings make sense, how likely is that though? Isn't a hammer pretty universal? Is a warhammer so different from a sledgehammer that it requires some kind of military training?
  • ChroniclerChronicler Member Posts: 1,391
    Yeah, that's a fair point. Guess I never thought about that.

    You'd think basic proficiency in any weapon would require about the same amount of training, short of any especially unwieldy weapons like flails.

    And in terms of gameplay limitations, the fact that mages get so few proficiency points would still be enough to communicate that they're not spending a lot of time on weapons training.
  • Balrog99Balrog99 Member Posts: 7,371

    Yeah, that's a fair point. Guess I never thought about that.

    You'd think basic proficiency in any weapon would require about the same amount of training, short of any especially unwieldy weapons like flails.

    And in terms of gameplay limitations, the fact that mages get so few proficiency points would still be enough to communicate that they're not spending a lot of time on weapons training.

    A fighter can at least wield any weapon regardless of proficiency. Is a wizard or sorcerer so inept that they can't pick up an axe to save their lives? Even if they grew up in the woods???
  • ChroniclerChronicler Member Posts: 1,391
    Item limitations are just a videogame trope in general.

    I'd be hardpressed to come up with any reason why any class should be unable to use any item beyond "It's magic, don't question it."

    A particularly weird one though is bards and robes. They can't cast in armor unless it's special armor, but they also can't wear robes, despite those being designed for just that reason.
  • JoenSoJoenSo Member Posts: 910

    @JoenSo
    The sling or the wizard? Because I could totally see Montaron throwing Xzar.

    Since I was paraphrasing Minsc, the sling would be the less likely candidate.
    "This here is a wizard sling!"
    "Great! I'll take it, I'm a wizard!"
    "No no, it's a sling for wizards."
    "Yes? And I'm a w... oh no."
  • ChroniclerChronicler Member Posts: 1,391
    Bg1 might've been a bit over-broad at times though. I seem to recall the "blunt" proficiency encompassed flails, maces, and quarter staves. I wouldn't imagine those skills would be quite so transferable.

    Same with two handed swords and longswords both being in the "large blades" proficiency.
  • ZaramMaldovarZaramMaldovar Member Posts: 2,309
    JoenSo said:

    @JoenSo
    The sling or the wizard? Because I could totally see Montaron throwing Xzar.

    Since I was paraphrasing Minsc, the sling would be the less likely candidate.
    "This here is a wizard sling!"
    "Great! I'll take it, I'm a wizard!"
    "No no, it's a sling for wizards."
    "Yes? And I'm a w... oh no."
    And that's how Xzar became an unwilling participant of Olympic Wizard Tossing.
  • Contemplative_HamsterContemplative_Hamster Member Posts: 844
    edited April 2018

    Monks can't use the staff, despite the staff being the one weapon most consistently shown in the hands of a monk. They can use darts though! We are all familiar with the age-old connection between Monks and darts, i'm sure.

    Bit of interesting background behind that.

    In order to create the monk's special barefisted attack animations, they had to overwrite one of the existing animations.

    They chose the two handed weapon attack animation, which is why monks can't use two handed weapons.

    In this case there is no real in lore logic or even gameplay sense to the decision. Just coding limitations.
    Could that be undone or changed? Say, changed to the weapon-and-shield animation? Because I'd love me some staff-wielding monk love. (Yes, ok, this time I get why Freud keeps giving me funny looks).

Sign In or Register to comment.