Moreover, playing nonstandard races doesn't mean that it has to be something like a half-ogre/half-dragon. It could also be just a tiefling, aasimar, genasi, drow or svirfneblin.
Even then, ECL would remain a lame mechanic, and an awkward solution to the fact that those races weren't meant as playable in the first place. Abilities that can be relatively useless in the hands of randomly encountered monsters or NPCs can be quite deadly or game-breaking in the hands of a PC.
Besides, races like aasimar, tiefling and genasi are supposed to be rare and special. If you allow your players to belong to them, those races become normal and mundane, and your players will start considering them something common.
Besides, races like aasimar, tiefling and genasi are supposed to be rare and special. If you allow your players to belong to them, those races become normal and mundane, and your players will start considering them something common.
I consider this to be a very bad argument. The PC is already rare and special just by being an adventurer. Allowing the player to use an exotic race doesn't instantly make that race common in the world its set in.
But the worse part of your argument is that you're basically dictating how other people should play their game. Because you don't like it everyone else that likes it shouldn't be allowed to have fun playing the game like they want to. Just because WotC gave players rules to use those races that doesn't mean you have to use them. They're options.
...it simply doesn't make sense for most of the limitations to exist. Paladins and Monks restricted to only Humans? Druids and Bards limited to Humans and Half-elves? Half-orcs, Halflings and Dwarves can never be an arcane caster (Dwarves create magical equipment for Pete's sake).
Let's see...
Fighter: any race.
Paladin: I can imagine quite a few more races having paladins in PnP, such as dwarves and elves, but within SoA you are forced to became a member of the Order of the Radiant Heart, which is a human-only order. So, in our setting the Paladin is better left as a human-only class imo.
Ranger: I do think half-orcs should be able to pick this class. I have mixed feelings for dwarves being rangers, they could be seen as a "cavern-type" ranger, but they already have their Racial Enemies anyway, they don't fit the stealthy DEX based role of the classic ranger, nor they strike me as "animal-lovers". I don't know what to think about halflings, maybe they could fit the role, maybe not, while gnomes surely don't.
Cleric: any race.
Druid: why the hell elves cannot be druids?!? o_O I'm not sure about half-orcs, and even less about halflings, but surely dwarves and gnomes don't fit this class.
Mage: dwarves craft magical armors and weapons with yes, but they do so with magical runes, and they have no tradition of practicing arcane spellcasting, nor they have schools of magic in their cities. Half-orcs living amongst orcs could become shamans, but surely not archmages. If they live in human societies they would probably not be accepted well in schools (we are in the 2012, and there's still racism out there, just imagine half orcs going to school along with human kids, in a supposedly medieval society).
Thief: any race.
Bard: bards need to be humans or half-elves because they need to be as charming and charismatic as possible when dealing with anyone, of any other race. I can imagine a halfling bard per se, but it would surely be disadvantaged compared to a human bard in a world where humans are clearly the dominant race (in terms of population) and occupy most of the position powers. Elves would never bow to enthral other species (they consider themselves superior), still I can imagine elven bards. Dwarves taking the bard career doesn't make much sense imo, and even less half-orcs.
Monk: I think it all comes down to something similar to what I said for mages. Monks train themselves in monasteries, and monasteries are pretty much human-only, because other races don't share such type of culture. Within the dwarven society you are not sent to monasteries, they train you to use and craft weapons and armors, half-orcs may like to fight with bare-hands but they would still grow as barbarian-like monks, not like your typical ascetic monk.
I agree certain limitations are too harh, but most of them do have a reason to exist imo. I probably cannot convince you, but the trick is to look at those "class restrictions" as something integral of those races, not as a limitation. The question is, why would you feel the necessity of playing a dwarf mage over a human mage?
Short story: @Tanthalas which are the race-class combinations currently blocked that you really think deserve to be allowed?
All I see is a lot of stereotyping and lack of roleplaying creativity. What if a gnome got into nature as his obsession? Gnomes are related to the Fey for goodness sake, having a connection to nature built-in! What if a particular Dwarf does love animals? It's not like most humans are animal-lovers to the degree of becoming rangers. What if a Dwarf decides he wants to learn more than runes and cast spells? Are you telling me it's *impossible*? if it's not literally impossible then why make it impossible by the rules? Sure most of these combinations will be rare but it gives a freedom to create a unique character. Most character class levels are gained when out adventuring remember, away from your home, family and culture. Adventuring is also a profession that is particularly attractive to oddballs and outcasts. The least sensible are the half-orc restrictions, as most half-orcs that become anything other than barbarians are human-raised. Even if there are literally no magic schools that would accept a half-orc or dwarf, there's still apprenticeships, and if the non-human was determined enough I bet they'd find a crazy/open-minded mage to take them in. The bottom line is: if something is rare but possible then discourage it by the rules but don't just outright ban it, that makes no sense.
As to why you would want to play a dwarf mage over a human mage, maybe you thought up a character concept for him, a backstory and personality that doesn't fit as well with a human. Having "races of hats" that all conform to one stereotype isn't a rich world, it's bland and uninteresting.
To sum up what I've said, the iconic changes for me were: a lot more attacks per round, a lot more HP, spell dcs and saving throws, more spell slots, sneak attack, and evasion.
--------------------------------
--------------------------------
In 3rd Ed, every class can get multiple attacks without dual wielding or using haste.
Fighters get four natural attacks by level 20, Rogues and Clerics get three, and Mages get two.
With dual wielding, and haste, a fighter can easily reach seven attacks per round. This might sound impressive, but a rogue or cleric can easily reach six attacks per round in the same way, and a mage (for crying out loud) can reach five attacks in the same way.
Great cleave alone can give a fighter with a greatsword, who would otherwise have one attack per round, easily five to ten attacks, since it adds one attack to the combat round per kill. But the same can be accomplished by a mage.
Also, fighter specialization no longer grants extra attacks.
This is one of the biggest changes for me personally, since you now take levels of fighter for feats, as opposed to attacks.
--------------------------------
The second is the implementation of DCs for spells.
To make a long story short, at low caster levels, spells are weaker than they were in 2nd Ed, but at high caster levels, spells are much stronger than they were in 2nd Ed.
Further, saving throws changed in 3rd Ed too, such that every class now seems to have strengths and weaknesses, except the monk (lol).
Lastly, the thief (now rogue) and monk classes gain an ability called Evasion, which allows them to entirely negate the damage of spells like fireball, and chain lightning, if they make a successful save vs spell. Later, it becomes Improved Evasion, such that even a failure to save results in their taking only half damage.
--------------------------------
The third is more spell slots for mages at lower levels, and designing the clerics and druids around the same model.
Now all these classes gain up to 9th level spell slots. They also gain slots at the same pace, and have max slots at 20.
Further, their relevant stat (Int or Wis) now grants additional spell slots to each class. A mage with 18 Int will now gain an extra slot at 1st, 2nd, 3rd, and 4th spell levels.
--------------------------------
Fourth is sneak attack.
No more 2x to 7x damage, but rather approx +1d6 per 2 levels of rogue. In other words, +10d6 for a 20th level rogue.
You don't need stealth to sneak attack either, you only need to attack someone that isn't targetting you.
Also, with the massive boost to extra attacks described above, the rogue can perform easily five to six of these sneak attacks per round.
--------------------------------
Fifth is the HP progression.
It doesn't stop at 9th level, but instead will go on indefinitely.
Now a level 20 Mage with 18 con (no more limitations either) can have up to 160 HP, whereas in 2nd ed, would have up to 65 HP.
Similarly, a 20 Fighter with 18 con can have up to 280 HP, whereas in 2nd ed, would have up to 159 HP.
But the worse part of your argument is that you're basically dictating how other people should play their game.
Isn't that the entire point of a rules system to begin with: Dictating how the game is to be played? If we're looking at it from this angle, every single rule in AD&D—or 3rd Ed. D&D for that matter—is entirely arbitrary.
Why would races like elves, dwarves and gnomes not be exotic, at any rate? Why would you need to play a drow for your elf to be "exotic"? With this kind of freedom, roleplaying creativity is reduced to how extoic your race is, or how out of ordinary your race/class combination is. Playing an elfin mage is suddenly considered uninteresting, mundane and boring under the assumption that the world is already full of those.
Encountering a drow elf isn't that special anymore if you're a drow yourself, is it? And encountering humans is never special because ... well, they're a playable race, and therefore something common, trivial, uninteresting. Encountering an aasimar should be a rare occasion, and something that feels special. If your character is that special, than most NPCs you encounter are drab and shabby by comparison ("Tsk, yet another human fighter ... will this world ever cease to underwhelm me with its trivial predictability?").
Personally, I like the fact that AD&D offered players the option to belong to certain races and classes, limited to certain stats which would already make them above average and out of ordinary, whereas other races, more or less rare and with more or less peculiar capabilities, were not available to players. Players weren't supposed to know much about them, and encountering then was mysterious and fascinating.
What 3rd Ed. made options that are freely available to everyone, AD&D used to make exceptions that had a lot of flavor to them right because they twisted the established rules. 3rd Ed. felt like there weren't many rules left to bend in the first place, and I didn't like that particular aspect.
Taking the decisions out of the hands of the DM and putting it into the hands of the players was the beginning of the end of Pen and Paper games. It results in the unintended consequence of all characters being completely unfettered in ability leading to ever more powerful baddies leading to more powerful PC's leading to needing even stronger bad guys....and no one ends up playing the character and ends up playing the "powers".... it is a downward spiral that ended in a mess.
There are social constructs around which races can be which classes, which is why only humans can be paladins (you must belong to a paladin order and they are all racist scumbags) and why there aren't any halfling wizards. It's also why druids can't go beyond level 14, because doing so would break druidic order in an area because the highest level druid is sautomatically arch-druid for a region. I find things like that counter-productive to a class-based RPG environment. What if my character is a druid because he reveres nature, but is a social recluse who loathes all humanoid contact and doesn't belong to a druidic order? There's no room for that with AD&D rules.
I've always wondered about that level-cap rule for Druids in the 2nd and 1st eds., and the Assassins and Monks in 1st ed. Like you said, there's a limit in place because it would break the balance in the larger communities to which those classes belong. It would create disharmony amongst them if they were "top-heavy" in terms of high-level members. Although it seems kind of silly to limit the entire campaign world to ONE grand druid, ONE Grandmaster of Flowers (so ominous sounding!), and ONE Grandfather of Assassins. Why not have one for each region? It's like having a pope or corporate CEO that every one from those classes acknowledges and obeys (more or less), no matter where they may be located on the globe.
3.5 takes a lot of the training wheels off for DM's compared to 2nd. A DM without any clear vision of his world was in trouble. Not everything had an answer and preassignment in the prime material plane other than the gear and monsters, with snippets to go off of as far as possible religious practices. They were suppose to fill in how classes and ESPECIALLY prestigue classes would be organised and how they would opporate. Most people are familiar with 2nd edition forgotten realms where EVERYTHING has a ridged structure and everyone is greater than the individual player. You are not drizzt. You are not elminster. You never will be. It is always against something somehow. It is PnP easy mode for the controlling DM. Page 146 says they won't like you, so you do not even have to consider it. On the otherhand, 3.5 gets rediculous if you have no reigns over it.
Do you perfer that the player is the vanilla norm stereotype and all the NPC are all wonderous exciting Mary Sue figures? Many DM's live for that with many different excuses that the little avatar they manipulate needs to be the only interesting character. For many groups of people, that genuinely makes for the best games. I have seen many players who are far more creative and engaged in both situations than the other. Kits>PrC hands down.
A happy middle ground to try is 3/3.5 oriental handbook/Rokugan. Try sticking to the L5R stamps if it suits you. Plenty of flavor and control plus room for the ambitions of the individual.
@Mortianna and @SandmanCCL, my guess is that the level 14 restriction on druids was meant to be a game-balancer.
I remember reading in Gygax's introduction to the Player's Handbook, that he had taken care to make no class any stronger than another, especially vis a vis warriors and wizards. The idea was that it would never be possible for any one player to become so powerful that he could "lord it over" the other players. It was supposed to be a cooperative play party among a group of adults, where everybody was out to have fun and socialize, not to try to out-power each other by exploiting the rules system. (Poor Gary would have hated MMO's, I think.)
Um, well, back to the original druid class, in 2nd edition pencil and paper, starting at 7th level, they had unlimited shapeshifts per day into *any* animal, with very few restrictions. You were limited only by your imagination, and any mass-altering restrictions imposed by your DM - and I don't remember there being any in the rulebooks. That meant, at will, you could turn into a bird to fly out of danger, become a poisonous snake and poison your foes, become any claw-claw-bite canine, feline, or ursine, become a horse and outrun your enemies, become a constrictor snake and squeeze your opponent to death, become a massive bull and gore your enemies to death, become a fish (or shark), and breathe water, become a mouse or literal fly-on-the-wall and spy, and, without mass restrictions, become an elephant and trample small armies, or become a giraffe, and survey the area over the highest tree tops.
You chose the class because you wanted to be a shapeshifter, not for the spells, which were only a secondary consideration to get you able to survive to seventh level. You couldn't even cast a Cure Light until you had second level spells. Have you guys looked at the original 2nd edition druid spell lists?
There was a similar balancing problem with the illusionist class. There was a first-level spell called "phantasmal force" that could do anything, limited only by the players imagination and the damage restriction of the spell (it was only a first-level spell as far as energy generated), but there was a seventh-level spell callled "alter reality". Gygax tried to balance this class by eliminating eighth and ninth level spells - "alter reality" was your ultimate power. Also, only the illusionist class got the color spray spell at first level.
When these classes got transcribed for Baldur's Gate, they could only implement a few forms for the druid, and they had to absorb the illusionist into the mage specialist list with nothing but an extra spell slot. As for the druid, the 14th level restriction no longer made sense because there was no way to implement enough effective shapeshifting forms to make shapeshifting worth it , but they under-compensated by removing the 14th level restriction, but keeping the idea in the form of a huge xp gap between 14 and 15.
They kept trying to tweak it by adding the Shifter and Avenger classes to make druids more appealing, but with limited success. I think the closest they came was with the Avenger kit.
@ the realms in general Every realms shaking event heralded the introduction of a new edition. Time of Troubles - 3rd Return of the Archwizards was afair 3.5 Spellplague - 4th To be announced - 5th
The problem with class abundancy is how you perceive them. Either you primarily use classes as something to define how you roleplay (e.g. I'm a ranger and therefore I do such and such) or you already have an idea what your character is able to do and want to express that mechanically (e.g. an assassin who transports himself from shadow to shadow, all the while being unseen -> x/Teflammar Shadowlord/insert class with Hide in Plain Sight).
10th
Actually the Time of Troubles heralded the switch from 1st to 2nd edition in the Forgotten Realms, just so you know (don't believe me, break out a copy of the Forgotten Realms campaign book, not box, and it states it in the first chapter). Third and 3.5 didn't have an official designator in the Realms (instead they revived Greyhawk), although Return of the Archwizards would be a solid indicator of the rules change and could stand as such, like you said. The spellplague was for the fourth, and it would be nice if they realized that these cataclysms aren't necessarily needed for the 5th.
I like the comments about the illusionist and phantasmal force.
From what I gather, it was a strange spell because if your opponent believes it is an illusion, it won't affect the opponent.
Perhaps this is a bit underwhelming, but I think a good solution for it would be to make it a will save based spell that imitates certain spells.
For example, using phantasmal forces to cast a phantasmal fireball, but instead of rolling a reflex save, the opponent rolls a will save. If the will save fails, the spell functions as normal.
The same applies if it is used for summoning or gating creatures, and so on. Technically, the spells phantasmal killer, weird, and the shadow conjuration spells of NWN are sort of like different forms of this very spell.
Tricky spell to implement though, since you're right, it's capable of so much more. Technically that illusionist at Waukeen's Promenade at the start of BG II could very well have been using this spell (in the tent, where there are illusionary werewolves, etc.). A phantasmal fireball is immensely underwhelming by comparison.
It also opens up potential for other specialists, considering each specialist could theoretically have corresponding unique spells that set them apart from the standard mage class. The necromancer, for example, could start with animate dead as a first level spell or something like that. The abjurer could have some form of dispel magic or globe of invulnerability at first level. The list could go on.
There are social constructs around which races can be which classes, which is why only humans can be paladins (you must belong to a paladin order and they are all racist scumbags) and why there aren't any halfling wizards.
Is it possible to be Lawful Good and yet a scumbag at the same time? I think this is a contradiction.
Some of the restrictions in 2nd ed are just funny. For example, if you roll less than an eight for charisma, you cannot be an elf.
Further, although I'm joking a bit here, if anything blame the gods, not the paladins. After all, the paladin is only a paladin because a god grants these abilities to him or her. But if the god is good, you run into the same problem. If a good god is racist, then either that god is not actually good, or racism is not bad. OMG it's the problem of evil ALL OVER AGAIN!
@fighter_mage_thief, agreed. And I especially admire your insight about the gnome in the circus tent. I was a bit more imaginiative than my high school DM in understanding the potential of this forgotten character class. When I read the class description and the spell list in the Player's Handbook, I was almost immediately struck with "Holy crap, this class can control reality! If you can magically force every mind within range of your spells (who fails a save), to see, hear, taste, touch, smell, and, depending on the level of your magic, experience damage and harm according to the vision of reality you create, then, my goodness, you're almost like a god right out the starting gate.
My friends always had a reaction of, meh, it's the weakest, most worthless class anybody every thought of. Nothing they can do is "real". What they didn't seem to get was that they had to make a saving throw, or anything I could imagine was going to happen to them, and it would be very "real" as far as effect, up to and including their deaths.
I never actually played it in my games with them though - it stayed a hypothetical discussion about the stuff in the TSR books. I was, even then, very interested in expressing my goodness through gaming, and the illusionist class seemed almost inherently evil to me (mind-control, almost like psychic rape).
My friends always had a reaction of, meh, it's the weakest, most worthless class anybody every thought of. Nothing they can do is "real". What they didn't seem to get was that they had to make a saving throw, or anything I could imagine was going to happen to them, and it would be very "real" as far as effect, up to and including their deaths.
That's shocking they would react like that. It just made me think of an interesting use for this level one spell: drowning your enemies!
I don't think the class is necessarily evil though. I would look at it as neutral by nature, and that it could even be played by a Lawful Good character, the reason being that what is truly scary about the class is the power, which is true even of the mage, considering many spells have the potential to cause great havoc and destruction.
@fighter_mage_thief, well, in their defense, the DM and I were both 17, and the rest my friends, who were the DM's brother and all *his* friends, were about 14.
From a very early age, I've always been a bit ahead of my peer group as far as ability to imagine things, and also in academic achievement, which I hope isn't too brash or arrogant for me to say. I mostly just mean that I've always been seen as "different" somehow by my peers, and nobody can say whether it's for better or for worse. At times, I wish I was just a normal guy, and at other times, I find joy in my differentness. I don't think I would change much, if I had it all to do over.
There are social constructs around which races can be which classes, which is why only humans can be paladins (you must belong to a paladin order and they are all racist scumbags) and why there aren't any halfling wizards.
Is it possible to be Lawful Good and yet a scumbag at the same time? I think this is a contradiction.
Sure it is. Keldorn is Lawful Good and is a terrible husband.
Alignments don't mean you can't have severe flaws. I think there are people who are homophobic who would fall under the "lawful good" category.
Moral conundrums are why I am glad 4e changed the alignment system. It is the one thing they did right.
Well, to be fair, they did have the Book of Humanoids in 2e. Most of them were pretty low-level, like goblins, orcs, bugbears and whatnot, but they also had Satyrs, Pixies, Wemics, Mongrelmen, Centaurs, Swanmays and so on. It wasn't limited to 3e.
@AndreaColombo ... Race restrictions for classes is definitely something that never made sense in AD&D. ...
Two non-official rules come to mind:
1) Story trumps rules. 2) Campaign setting trumps rules.
If the societies in the campaign settings were designed in a certain way then it made no sense to include certain classes/races. If a group wanted to play in a classical themed world (e.g. ancient greek/egypt) without much fantasy elements then there would be only humans (and the humans distinguished by belonging to different tribes) and classes like the paladin would probably be missing. Class restrictions would then be placed on individual tribes/groups. But even then a DM might probably allow some unusual race/class combination if the player comes up with a plausible story. Of course this would mean that the players are more into roleplaying.
Things get more different with a hack&slay style campaign. There the DM would need to take care that players don't exploit the rules too far.
Third edition made bards useless. I know, I know, I'm one of the few people here that likes vanilla bards. I liked them because they fit in well with any group, and since most of the guys I played PnP with were the "stab first and ask questions never" type, I played the diplomat of the group who could toss spells or stab things as needed. 3rd edition gave bards access to healing magic, which was nice, but it insisted all offensive bardic magic be sound or illusion-based, which meant minimal direct damage spells. If I wanted to be a healer, I'd be a cleric and be far more resilient. The central idea to bards was that they pick up a lot of different skills as they travel, so they're never great at anything, but they're good at a lot. 3rd edition killed that. I'm also in the "Prestige Classes are Annoying" camp. 4th edition was all about powers, like it tried to be a paper version of WoW and all your abilities were paper hotkeys with different cooldown times. It makes everything take FOREVER, and it's not about roleplaying. @LadyRhian there's a Youtube series of two guys doing a 4e version of Tomb of Horrors, and it takes them bloody ages to do anything and everything. I think we still have the old AD&D or maybe 2nd edition starter kit. I may have to steal it from my parents'. That may be the next game night I have.
@Jhart1018 I saw that. I found a 3e version of the Tomb of Horrors online, and they nerfed the "Die, no save" type stuff. so it's not as hard, so to speak.
@jhart1018: Rangers were pretty bad in base 3e, too. Bards and Rangers got a significant buff in 3.5.
I usually played as a bard in D&D sessions, mostly because I'd bring along my acoustic guitar and play 3 chords and sing ridiculously poor lyrics for whenever I used any of my song abilities. Most people didn't seem to mind I wasn't really engaged in the "game" itself, because that's never really the point of PnP. It's just an excuse to sit around and be nerdy and order a pizza.
Paladin: I can imagine quite a few more races having paladins in PnP, such as dwarves and elves, but within SoA you are forced to became a member of the Order of the Radiant Heart, which is a human-only order. So, in our setting the Paladin is better left as a human-only class imo.
As a race in general, Dwarves are considered Lawful good. Why would Dwarves not have their own paladian orders? Sure Dwarves can be fighter clerics, but why not a Paladin?
Ranger: I do think half-orcs should be able to pick this class. I have mixed feelings for dwarves being rangers, they could be seen as a "cavern-type" ranger, but they already have their Racial Enemies anyway, they don't fit the stealthy DEX based role of the classic ranger, nor they strike me as "animal-lovers". I don't know what to think about halflings, maybe they could fit the role, maybe not, while gnomes surely don't.
Who says Dwarves are not animal lovers? Surely any animal that lives underground could be a Dwarven ranger’s animal companion while he scouts the underground trade routes and protecting the outskirts from the many dangers of the underdark.
And halflings, someone needs to scout ahead to protect their caravans from danger and who better than a Halfling ranger?
Druid: why the hell elves cannot be druids?!? o_O I'm not sure about half-orcs, and even less about halflings, but surely dwarves and gnomes don't fit this class.
Mage: dwarves craft magical armors and weapons with yes, but they do so with magical runes, and they have no tradition of practicing arcane spellcasting, nor they have schools of magic in their cities. Half-orcs living amongst orcs could become shamans, but surely not archmages. If they live in human societies they would probably not be accepted well in schools (we are in the 2012, and there's still racism out there, just imagine half orcs going to school along with human kids, in a supposedly medieval society).
Runic magic is a valid type of magic. Why couldn’t you have a dwarven runic mage?
Bard: bards need to be humans or half-elves because they need to be as charming and charismatic as possible when dealing with anyone, of any other race. I can imagine a halfling bard per se, but it would surely be disadvantaged compared to a human bard in a world where humans are clearly the dominant race (in terms of population) and occupy most of the position powers. Elves would never bow to enthral other species (they consider themselves superior), still I can imagine elven bards. Dwarves taking the bard career doesn't make much sense imo, and even less half-orcs.
You say that Bards need to be as charming and charismatic as possible to deal with anyone. Yet discount Dwarves from being bards. Do they not deal with other people? You seem to be stuck with this idea of a gruff surly burly dwarf. Surely a dwarven bard could act as a diplomat to outside realms? Don’t bards also tell tales of ancient heroic deeds? Dwarves highly respect this so why would they not have their own bards to recount the tales of their ancestors and their orc slaying heroics? Can you not picture a dwarven bard slamming some war drums inspiring his fellow dwarves to victory?
Halflings love good story to accompany their meals. Surely Halflings have their own heroes that have stood up to the taller folk, the goblins and kobalds that menace their villages from time to time.
And then 3e was jack of all professions, master of none. Your character can take a level of this, a level of that, blah, blah, blah... no rhyme or reason. It left a bit of a bad taste in my mouth.
A good Roleplayer can find many valid reasons for the multi-class combinations they come up with.
I like the comments about the illusionist and phantasmal force.
From what I gather, it was a strange spell because if your opponent believes it is an illusion, it won't affect the opponent.
Perhaps this is a bit underwhelming, but I think a good solution for it would be to make it a will save based spell that imitates certain spells.
For example, using phantasmal forces to cast a phantasmal fireball, but instead of rolling a reflex save, the opponent rolls a will save. If the will save fails, the spell functions as normal.
The same applies if it is used for summoning or gating creatures, and so on. Technically, the spells phantasmal killer, weird, and the shadow conjuration spells of NWN are sort of like different forms of this very spell.
Tricky spell to implement though, since you're right, it's capable of so much more. Technically that illusionist at Waukeen's Promenade at the start of BG II could very well have been using this spell (in the tent, where there are illusionary werewolves, etc.). A phantasmal fireball is immensely underwhelming by comparison.
It also opens up potential for other specialists, considering each specialist could theoretically have corresponding unique spells that set them apart from the standard mage class. The necromancer, for example, could start with animate dead as a first level spell or something like that. The abjurer could have some form of dispel magic or globe of invulnerability at first level. The list could go on.
There are social constructs around which races can be which classes, which is why only humans can be paladins (you must belong to a paladin order and they are all racist scumbags) and why there aren't any halfling wizards.
Is it possible to be Lawful Good and yet a scumbag at the same time? I think this is a contradiction.
Some of the restrictions in 2nd ed are just funny. For example, if you roll less than an eight for charisma, you cannot be an elf.
Further, although I'm joking a bit here, if anything blame the gods, not the paladins. After all, the paladin is only a paladin because a god grants these abilities to him or her. But if the god is good, you run into the same problem. If a good god is racist, then either that god is not actually good, or racism is not bad. OMG it's the problem of evil ALL OVER AGAIN!
Actually, if your opponent believed in the illusion it could affect them, just not permanently. But if they believed they were dead they would be rendered unconscious, and transitioning someone from unconscious to dead isn't difficult lol. Phantasmal force had the hardest time convincing someone they were hurt because it was purely visual, with no auditory, olfactory, or tactile components. It worked best as a means to hide or distract.
The original idea behind paladins being only human comes from first edition. It was meant to be one of the things that balanced the humans against the other races. Essentially, humans had this unique capacity, gifted to them by their gods (each species had their own gods), to create a crusader who was immune to mind control and disease, could heal with a touch, turn away the undead (and in 1st ed. demons as well), and cure any disease on any one person, even plague. Paladins, along with level limits, were how they balanced the humans (who had no special racial abilities per se) against the other races. Second edition carried those rules over, and in 3rd edition and beyond it was acknowledged that no one actually observed those rules so they got rid of them and re-balanced humans with a bonus feat and bonus skill points at first level.
There are social constructs around which races can be which classes, which is why only humans can be paladins (you must belong to a paladin order and they are all racist scumbags) and why there aren't any halfling wizards.
Is it possible to be Lawful Good and yet a scumbag at the same time? I think this is a contradiction.
Sure it is. Keldorn is Lawful Good and is a terrible husband.
Alignments don't mean you can't have severe flaws. I think there are people who are homophobic who would fall under the "lawful good" category.
Moral conundrums are why I am glad 4e changed the alignment system. It is the one thing they did right.
I don't think Keldorn being a 'terrible husband' means he's a scumbag either.
If he were a cheater, or simply didn't care at all about his wife and children, then I think I'd call him a scumbag, but Keldorn seems more like a soldier who's away at war a lot (and in the name of protecting the people of Amn, including his family--the typical thing a soldier might say, that he/she makes sacrifices so that others can remain safe), and perhaps awkward around his family because this has estranged him from them.
Keldorn seems to me more like an idealist of some sort, who sees himself as being capable of doing great good at the macro level, which is why he is always in the field. You meet him in the sewers seeking out cultists or something like that, and in one of the endings for him (might be the only one), he goes out to battle one last time to protect people from an invasion of giants or something like that. A lot of people make sacrifices in life in order to do what they feel is right, and this isn't necessarily something to criticize, or condemn.
Even the scene where Keldorn points out that Viconia is a drow, I don't think he would have the same reaction to Drizzt, who is also a drow. It is racist on some level, but at the same time, in this setting, usually the only time drow are seen at all is when they are in hunting parties killing people, which is detailed in the underdark in SoA as well. This is in addition to the fact that he can literally sense the evil within Viconia, being a paladin, which means to many people, he would be giving good advice. Further, his stats are actually heroic, given the nature of d&d, and while he can take care of himself, he is concerned for the welfare of the group when he makes these comments. It's not the same as saying, "look at that dirty smelly little gnome!" (referring to Jan lol).
As for prejudice against gays, I don't know. Homophobia can manifest itself in lots of different ways. Some people are just jerks and literally have no respect for anyone, and I don't think that when they go home after beating up someone they thought was gay, they are suddenly the perfect model citizen. Rather, I think something is seriously wrong there. On the other hand, some people are just grossed out by homosexuality, for whatever reasons. For me, for instance, making out with a fat hairy biker is just a gross thought lol. A twink on the other hand, maybe not so gross lol, there's some femininity there. And that sort of reaction is a lot different compared to discriminating against someone, or calling someone names, making life hard for a person, and so on. Part of it is just a person's taste, which is relevant to other things, such as being more comfortable around family or the feeling of belonging to a culture. I find a lot of different cultures interesting, but at the end of the day, I like Western culture the most, but that's because it feels like it's a part of who I am, and this is how a lot of others are with respect to other cultures, and this I wouldn't use the term scumbag for either. On the other hand, someone who is so uneasy with another culture that they start to deface statues, or destroy art, or burn books, that's reaching into scumbag territory, imo, and I don't think these individuals doing these sorts of things are actually good natured.
That being said, there is something flawed with the dnd alignment system of course. For example, I think it's possible to be good natured when it comes to certain things, and bad natured when it comes to other things. And if this is true, a person can't rightly be called good or bad in an absolute sense. Or else perhaps a person can actually be good or bad in an absolute sense, but ignorant when it comes to certain things, and thus when a good person does something bad, it's either due to ignorance or some other flaw, like you were suggesting. But if it is ignorance or some character flaw, then I don't think that person is a scumbag. (Arguably, if the person understands that the behaviour is not good, yet desires to do good, the person would try to stop engaging in that behaviour.) Just like I wouldn't think that someone who means harm to someone but accidentally does a very good or beneficial thing is a saint.
I'm not sure what alignment changes you're referring to, but I find the alignment system of 2nd and 3rd added an interesting quality to these games. For example, in the Temple of Elemental Evil, there was a different starting scene for each separate alignment, which I thought was pretty interesting. There are definitely some interesting archetypes that arise out of them, from my experience anyways.
To make a long story short, I just don't think someone can really be a scumbag and yet of a good alignment. Perhaps not even of a neutral alignment either. I might call the paladins ignorant, self-righteous, arrogant, misguided, foolish, and so on, but in reality, those paladins that possess these qualities wouldn't remain paladins for long, since it doesn't take much to become a fallen paladin. In which case, the ideal paladin would not possess any of these flaws.
But who knows how they are portrayed in the books and stuff like that. It's very easy to make a parody of something that really is good, or beautiful for that matter. Even the truly authentic act of self sacrifice in the name of love for another human being, for example, can be portrayed and criticized as a selfish, shallow act, because ultimately, we don't actually know who the 'other' really is in his or her heart. In d&d on the other hand, the alignment is supposed to actually reflect this deep inner-most nature, and the truth is supposed to be literally discernable [i.e. detect alignment, lies, ESP/telepathy, protection from evil or good (literally from evil or literally from good), and so on, whereas we have none of this in real life]. What can I say? I like thinking about these sorts of things though.
p.s. talking about the military, it reminded me of A Few Good Men lol
Ugh I used to enjoy that seen in A Few Good Men, but looking back now it makes me sick. I went into the Marine Corps after HS and ya, Col. Jessup would not have lasted long.
As far as @jhart1018 said about bardic magic though. *sigh* Ya that frustrated me as well. I had been starting to consider bards in IWD2 and then I saw there spell list and was like "erm wtf!". The only way I've found around that is using a bard 11/sorc 19 in IWD, which, granted, is powerful, its also just *sigh*. I also tend to prefer pure characters though, occasionally dipping into fighter (Paladin/Ranger/Fighter represent), but usually i prefer pures. Well except for that one above. One day I'll find a group and make that character just for fun.
Ugh I used to enjoy that seen in A Few Good Men, but looking back now it makes me sick. I went into the Marine Corps after HS and ya, Col. Jessup would not have lasted long.
As far as @jhart1018 said about bardic magic though. *sigh* Ya that frustrated me as well. I had been starting to consider bards in IWD2 and then I saw there spell list and was like "erm wtf!". The only way I've found around that is using a bard 11/sorc 19 in IWD, which, granted, is powerful, its also just *sigh*. I also tend to prefer pure characters though, occasionally dipping into fighter (Paladin/Ranger/Fighter represent), but usually i prefer pures. Well except for that one above. One day I'll find a group and make that character just for fun.
Honestly, it doesn't matter to me whether that is an accurate portrayal of the marine corps, although it is possible that the experience is different depending on both the place and time. Prior to just recently, the military was a male occupation, and it could have been very different. The civil rights movement alone could have changed a lot of things drastically. But I don't presume to know much about the military. The point I was making is that a lot of what Jessup says in that clip is actually what justifies lots of things that not everyone is going to approve of. This seems even more relevant to the ancient world, where border protection was literally a life or death scenario, since you would have foreign marauders literally enslaving or killing everyone in their path, razing villages, and plundering, and often at random, unexpected times. He's actually making a very old argument which could become relevant again one day (after all, what he's talking about on some remote level is not just utilitarian ideology, but also the longterm survival of the species, while further hinting at what it might take in times of great peril for civilization to endure, which also means it extends far beyond the scope of the marine corps, although in this context, Jessup's basically invoking this over something that's arguably stupid and trivial), and there actually is a romantic (in the literary sense) side to what he's saying, which belongs in that literary setting (it's a movie after all, and was written with a variety of perspectives in mind, and it wouldn't be wise to ignore the clear dangers of the military industrial complex either). The major problem with Jessup is that he has this mentality even when the nation is not in a state of war or imminent danger (aside from perhaps mutually assured destruction, i.e. nuclear war). By contrast, bringing this all back to Keldorn, he's not engaging in criminal behaviour, but rather spent a large portion of his life in the 'field' so to speak, trying to make life safer for others, and so on, my point being that if he justified a lot of his choices in the same way as Jessup, I wouldn't see Keldorn in the same light as Jessup. By contrast, I would think he made great sacrifices in the name of a greater good, and that his failed marriage, "while tragic," does not make him a scumbag, fatally flawed, or immoral.
That's interesting that you were in the marine corps, by the way. In reality, I would likely be more like Santiago, because I actually have breathing problems (if you know what I'm referring to), and have nerve damage in my feet, so I'm literally not cut out for long marches and stuff like that. I also get the shakes in high stress situations, so I would likely be a liability in a time of war. I'm not cut out for combat, and I'm definitely not puting military life on a pedestal, although I do think it is a great cinematic scene that I can enjoy. It definitely doesn't inspire me to join the military though or anything like that, although I also have no disrespect for people who have been in the forces.
edit: sorry for all the edits, but a lot of what I write is a work in progress.
Comments
Besides, races like aasimar, tiefling and genasi are supposed to be rare and special. If you allow your players to belong to them, those races become normal and mundane, and your players will start considering them something common.
But the worse part of your argument is that you're basically dictating how other people should play their game. Because you don't like it everyone else that likes it shouldn't be allowed to have fun playing the game like they want to. Just because WotC gave players rules to use those races that doesn't mean you have to use them. They're options.
As to why you would want to play a dwarf mage over a human mage, maybe you thought up a character concept for him, a backstory and personality that doesn't fit as well with a human. Having "races of hats" that all conform to one stereotype isn't a rich world, it's bland and uninteresting.
--------------------------------
--------------------------------
In 3rd Ed, every class can get multiple attacks without dual wielding or using haste.
Fighters get four natural attacks by level 20, Rogues and Clerics get three, and Mages get two.
With dual wielding, and haste, a fighter can easily reach seven attacks per round. This might sound impressive, but a rogue or cleric can easily reach six attacks per round in the same way, and a mage (for crying out loud) can reach five attacks in the same way.
Great cleave alone can give a fighter with a greatsword, who would otherwise have one attack per round, easily five to ten attacks, since it adds one attack to the combat round per kill. But the same can be accomplished by a mage.
Also, fighter specialization no longer grants extra attacks.
This is one of the biggest changes for me personally, since you now take levels of fighter for feats, as opposed to attacks.
--------------------------------
The second is the implementation of DCs for spells.
To make a long story short, at low caster levels, spells are weaker than they were in 2nd Ed, but at high caster levels, spells are much stronger than they were in 2nd Ed.
Further, saving throws changed in 3rd Ed too, such that every class now seems to have strengths and weaknesses, except the monk (lol).
Lastly, the thief (now rogue) and monk classes gain an ability called Evasion, which allows them to entirely negate the damage of spells like fireball, and chain lightning, if they make a successful save vs spell. Later, it becomes Improved Evasion, such that even a failure to save results in their taking only half damage.
--------------------------------
The third is more spell slots for mages at lower levels, and designing the clerics and druids around the same model.
Now all these classes gain up to 9th level spell slots. They also gain slots at the same pace, and have max slots at 20.
Further, their relevant stat (Int or Wis) now grants additional spell slots to each class. A mage with 18 Int will now gain an extra slot at 1st, 2nd, 3rd, and 4th spell levels.
--------------------------------
Fourth is sneak attack.
No more 2x to 7x damage, but rather approx +1d6 per 2 levels of rogue. In other words, +10d6 for a 20th level rogue.
You don't need stealth to sneak attack either, you only need to attack someone that isn't targetting you.
Also, with the massive boost to extra attacks described above, the rogue can perform easily five to six of these sneak attacks per round.
--------------------------------
Fifth is the HP progression.
It doesn't stop at 9th level, but instead will go on indefinitely.
Now a level 20 Mage with 18 con (no more limitations either) can have up to 160 HP, whereas in 2nd ed, would have up to 65 HP.
Similarly, a 20 Fighter with 18 con can have up to 280 HP, whereas in 2nd ed, would have up to 159 HP.
Why would races like elves, dwarves and gnomes not be exotic, at any rate? Why would you need to play a drow for your elf to be "exotic"? With this kind of freedom, roleplaying creativity is reduced to how extoic your race is, or how out of ordinary your race/class combination is. Playing an elfin mage is suddenly considered uninteresting, mundane and boring under the assumption that the world is already full of those.
Encountering a drow elf isn't that special anymore if you're a drow yourself, is it? And encountering humans is never special because ... well, they're a playable race, and therefore something common, trivial, uninteresting. Encountering an aasimar should be a rare occasion, and something that feels special. If your character is that special, than most NPCs you encounter are drab and shabby by comparison ("Tsk, yet another human fighter ... will this world ever cease to underwhelm me with its trivial predictability?").
Personally, I like the fact that AD&D offered players the option to belong to certain races and classes, limited to certain stats which would already make them above average and out of ordinary, whereas other races, more or less rare and with more or less peculiar capabilities, were not available to players. Players weren't supposed to know much about them, and encountering then was mysterious and fascinating.
What 3rd Ed. made options that are freely available to everyone, AD&D used to make exceptions that had a lot of flavor to them right because they twisted the established rules. 3rd Ed. felt like there weren't many rules left to bend in the first place, and I didn't like that particular aspect.
Do you perfer that the player is the vanilla norm stereotype and all the NPC are all wonderous exciting Mary Sue figures? Many DM's live for that with many different excuses that the little avatar they manipulate needs to be the only interesting character. For many groups of people, that genuinely makes for the best games. I have seen many players who are far more creative and engaged in both situations than the other. Kits>PrC hands down.
A happy middle ground to try is 3/3.5 oriental handbook/Rokugan. Try sticking to the L5R stamps if it suits you. Plenty of flavor and control plus room for the ambitions of the individual.
I remember reading in Gygax's introduction to the Player's Handbook, that he had taken care to make no class any stronger than another, especially vis a vis warriors and wizards. The idea was that it would never be possible for any one player to become so powerful that he could "lord it over" the other players. It was supposed to be a cooperative play party among a group of adults, where everybody was out to have fun and socialize, not to try to out-power each other by exploiting the rules system. (Poor Gary would have hated MMO's, I think.)
Um, well, back to the original druid class, in 2nd edition pencil and paper, starting at 7th level, they had unlimited shapeshifts per day into *any* animal, with very few restrictions. You were limited only by your imagination, and any mass-altering restrictions imposed by your DM - and I don't remember there being any in the rulebooks. That meant, at will, you could turn into a bird to fly out of danger, become a poisonous snake and poison your foes, become any claw-claw-bite canine, feline, or ursine, become a horse and outrun your enemies, become a constrictor snake and squeeze your opponent to death, become a massive bull and gore your enemies to death, become a fish (or shark), and breathe water, become a mouse or literal fly-on-the-wall and spy, and, without mass restrictions, become an elephant and trample small armies, or become a giraffe, and survey the area over the highest tree tops.
You chose the class because you wanted to be a shapeshifter, not for the spells, which were only a secondary consideration to get you able to survive to seventh level. You couldn't even cast a Cure Light until you had second level spells. Have you guys looked at the original 2nd edition druid spell lists?
There was a similar balancing problem with the illusionist class. There was a first-level spell called "phantasmal force" that could do anything, limited only by the players imagination and the damage restriction of the spell (it was only a first-level spell as far as energy generated), but there was a seventh-level spell callled "alter reality". Gygax tried to balance this class by eliminating eighth and ninth level spells - "alter reality" was your ultimate power. Also, only the illusionist class got the color spray spell at first level.
When these classes got transcribed for Baldur's Gate, they could only implement a few forms for the druid, and they had to absorb the illusionist into the mage specialist list with nothing but an extra spell slot. As for the druid, the 14th level restriction no longer made sense because there was no way to implement enough effective shapeshifting forms to make shapeshifting worth it , but they under-compensated by removing the 14th level restriction, but keeping the idea in the form of a huge xp gap between 14 and 15.
They kept trying to tweak it by adding the Shifter and Avenger classes to make druids more appealing, but with limited success. I think the closest they came was with the Avenger kit.
10th
I like the comments about the illusionist and phantasmal force.
From what I gather, it was a strange spell because if your opponent believes it is an illusion, it won't affect the opponent.
Perhaps this is a bit underwhelming, but I think a good solution for it would be to make it a will save based spell that imitates certain spells.
For example, using phantasmal forces to cast a phantasmal fireball, but instead of rolling a reflex save, the opponent rolls a will save. If the will save fails, the spell functions as normal.
The same applies if it is used for summoning or gating creatures, and so on. Technically, the spells phantasmal killer, weird, and the shadow conjuration spells of NWN are sort of like different forms of this very spell.
Tricky spell to implement though, since you're right, it's capable of so much more. Technically that illusionist at Waukeen's Promenade at the start of BG II could very well have been using this spell (in the tent, where there are illusionary werewolves, etc.). A phantasmal fireball is immensely underwhelming by comparison.
It also opens up potential for other specialists, considering each specialist could theoretically have corresponding unique spells that set them apart from the standard mage class. The necromancer, for example, could start with animate dead as a first level spell or something like that. The abjurer could have some form of dispel magic or globe of invulnerability at first level. The list could go on. Is it possible to be Lawful Good and yet a scumbag at the same time? I think this is a contradiction.
Some of the restrictions in 2nd ed are just funny. For example, if you roll less than an eight for charisma, you cannot be an elf.
Further, although I'm joking a bit here, if anything blame the gods, not the paladins. After all, the paladin is only a paladin because a god grants these abilities to him or her. But if the god is good, you run into the same problem. If a good god is racist, then either that god is not actually good, or racism is not bad. OMG it's the problem of evil ALL OVER AGAIN!
My friends always had a reaction of, meh, it's the weakest, most worthless class anybody every thought of. Nothing they can do is "real". What they didn't seem to get was that they had to make a saving throw, or anything I could imagine was going to happen to them, and it would be very "real" as far as effect, up to and including their deaths.
I never actually played it in my games with them though - it stayed a hypothetical discussion about the stuff in the TSR books. I was, even then, very interested in expressing my goodness through gaming, and the illusionist class seemed almost inherently evil to me (mind-control, almost like psychic rape).
I don't think the class is necessarily evil though. I would look at it as neutral by nature, and that it could even be played by a Lawful Good character, the reason being that what is truly scary about the class is the power, which is true even of the mage, considering many spells have the potential to cause great havoc and destruction.
From a very early age, I've always been a bit ahead of my peer group as far as ability to imagine things, and also in academic achievement, which I hope isn't too brash or arrogant for me to say. I mostly just mean that I've always been seen as "different" somehow by my peers, and nobody can say whether it's for better or for worse. At times, I wish I was just a normal guy, and at other times, I find joy in my differentness. I don't think I would change much, if I had it all to do over.
Alignments don't mean you can't have severe flaws. I think there are people who are homophobic who would fall under the "lawful good" category.
Moral conundrums are why I am glad 4e changed the alignment system. It is the one thing they did right.
1) Story trumps rules.
2) Campaign setting trumps rules.
If the societies in the campaign settings were designed in a certain way then it made no sense to include certain classes/races. If a group wanted to play in a classical themed world (e.g. ancient greek/egypt) without much fantasy elements then there would be only humans (and the humans distinguished by belonging to different tribes) and classes like the paladin would probably be missing. Class restrictions would then be placed on individual tribes/groups. But even then a DM might probably allow some unusual race/class combination if the player comes up with a plausible story. Of course this would mean that the players are more into roleplaying.
Things get more different with a hack&slay style campaign. There the DM would need to take care that players don't exploit the rules too far.
I usually played as a bard in D&D sessions, mostly because I'd bring along my acoustic guitar and play 3 chords and sing ridiculously poor lyrics for whenever I used any of my song abilities. Most people didn't seem to mind I wasn't really engaged in the "game" itself, because that's never really the point of PnP. It's just an excuse to sit around and be nerdy and order a pizza.
Who says Dwarves are not animal lovers? Surely any animal that lives underground could be a Dwarven ranger’s animal companion while he scouts the underground trade routes and protecting the outskirts from the many dangers of the underdark.
And halflings, someone needs to scout ahead to protect their caravans from danger and who better than a Halfling ranger?
Ever heard of Pikel Bouldershoulder? Runic magic is a valid type of magic. Why couldn’t you have a dwarven runic mage? You say that Bards need to be as charming and charismatic as possible to deal with anyone. Yet discount Dwarves from being bards. Do they not deal with other people? You seem to be stuck with this idea of a gruff surly burly dwarf. Surely a dwarven bard could act as a diplomat to outside realms? Don’t bards also tell tales of ancient heroic deeds? Dwarves highly respect this so why would they not have their own bards to recount the tales of their ancestors and their orc slaying heroics? Can you not picture a dwarven bard slamming some war drums inspiring his fellow dwarves to victory?
Halflings love good story to accompany their meals. Surely Halflings have their own heroes that have stood up to the taller folk, the goblins and kobalds that menace their villages from time to time.
The original idea behind paladins being only human comes from first edition. It was meant to be one of the things that balanced the humans against the other races. Essentially, humans had this unique capacity, gifted to them by their gods (each species had their own gods), to create a crusader who was immune to mind control and disease, could heal with a touch, turn away the undead (and in 1st ed. demons as well), and cure any disease on any one person, even plague. Paladins, along with level limits, were how they balanced the humans (who had no special racial abilities per se) against the other races. Second edition carried those rules over, and in 3rd edition and beyond it was acknowledged that no one actually observed those rules so they got rid of them and re-balanced humans with a bonus feat and bonus skill points at first level.
If he were a cheater, or simply didn't care at all about his wife and children, then I think I'd call him a scumbag, but Keldorn seems more like a soldier who's away at war a lot (and in the name of protecting the people of Amn, including his family--the typical thing a soldier might say, that he/she makes sacrifices so that others can remain safe), and perhaps awkward around his family because this has estranged him from them.
Keldorn seems to me more like an idealist of some sort, who sees himself as being capable of doing great good at the macro level, which is why he is always in the field. You meet him in the sewers seeking out cultists or something like that, and in one of the endings for him (might be the only one), he goes out to battle one last time to protect people from an invasion of giants or something like that. A lot of people make sacrifices in life in order to do what they feel is right, and this isn't necessarily something to criticize, or condemn.
Even the scene where Keldorn points out that Viconia is a drow, I don't think he would have the same reaction to Drizzt, who is also a drow. It is racist on some level, but at the same time, in this setting, usually the only time drow are seen at all is when they are in hunting parties killing people, which is detailed in the underdark in SoA as well. This is in addition to the fact that he can literally sense the evil within Viconia, being a paladin, which means to many people, he would be giving good advice. Further, his stats are actually heroic, given the nature of d&d, and while he can take care of himself, he is concerned for the welfare of the group when he makes these comments. It's not the same as saying, "look at that dirty smelly little gnome!" (referring to Jan lol).
As for prejudice against gays, I don't know. Homophobia can manifest itself in lots of different ways. Some people are just jerks and literally have no respect for anyone, and I don't think that when they go home after beating up someone they thought was gay, they are suddenly the perfect model citizen. Rather, I think something is seriously wrong there. On the other hand, some people are just grossed out by homosexuality, for whatever reasons. For me, for instance, making out with a fat hairy biker is just a gross thought lol. A twink on the other hand, maybe not so gross lol, there's some femininity there. And that sort of reaction is a lot different compared to discriminating against someone, or calling someone names, making life hard for a person, and so on. Part of it is just a person's taste, which is relevant to other things, such as being more comfortable around family or the feeling of belonging to a culture. I find a lot of different cultures interesting, but at the end of the day, I like Western culture the most, but that's because it feels like it's a part of who I am, and this is how a lot of others are with respect to other cultures, and this I wouldn't use the term scumbag for either. On the other hand, someone who is so uneasy with another culture that they start to deface statues, or destroy art, or burn books, that's reaching into scumbag territory, imo, and I don't think these individuals doing these sorts of things are actually good natured.
That being said, there is something flawed with the dnd alignment system of course. For example, I think it's possible to be good natured when it comes to certain things, and bad natured when it comes to other things. And if this is true, a person can't rightly be called good or bad in an absolute sense. Or else perhaps a person can actually be good or bad in an absolute sense, but ignorant when it comes to certain things, and thus when a good person does something bad, it's either due to ignorance or some other flaw, like you were suggesting. But if it is ignorance or some character flaw, then I don't think that person is a scumbag. (Arguably, if the person understands that the behaviour is not good, yet desires to do good, the person would try to stop engaging in that behaviour.) Just like I wouldn't think that someone who means harm to someone but accidentally does a very good or beneficial thing is a saint.
I'm not sure what alignment changes you're referring to, but I find the alignment system of 2nd and 3rd added an interesting quality to these games. For example, in the Temple of Elemental Evil, there was a different starting scene for each separate alignment, which I thought was pretty interesting. There are definitely some interesting archetypes that arise out of them, from my experience anyways.
To make a long story short, I just don't think someone can really be a scumbag and yet of a good alignment. Perhaps not even of a neutral alignment either. I might call the paladins ignorant, self-righteous, arrogant, misguided, foolish, and so on, but in reality, those paladins that possess these qualities wouldn't remain paladins for long, since it doesn't take much to become a fallen paladin. In which case, the ideal paladin would not possess any of these flaws.
But who knows how they are portrayed in the books and stuff like that. It's very easy to make a parody of something that really is good, or beautiful for that matter. Even the truly authentic act of self sacrifice in the name of love for another human being, for example, can be portrayed and criticized as a selfish, shallow act, because ultimately, we don't actually know who the 'other' really is in his or her heart. In d&d on the other hand, the alignment is supposed to actually reflect this deep inner-most nature, and the truth is supposed to be literally discernable [i.e. detect alignment, lies, ESP/telepathy, protection from evil or good (literally from evil or literally from good), and so on, whereas we have none of this in real life]. What can I say? I like thinking about these sorts of things though.
p.s. talking about the military, it reminded me of A Few Good Men lol
As far as @jhart1018 said about bardic magic though. *sigh* Ya that frustrated me as well. I had been starting to consider bards in IWD2 and then I saw there spell list and was like "erm wtf!". The only way I've found around that is using a bard 11/sorc 19 in IWD, which, granted, is powerful, its also just *sigh*. I also tend to prefer pure characters though, occasionally dipping into fighter (Paladin/Ranger/Fighter represent), but usually i prefer pures. Well except for that one above. One day I'll find a group and make that character just for fun.
That's interesting that you were in the marine corps, by the way. In reality, I would likely be more like Santiago, because I actually have breathing problems (if you know what I'm referring to), and have nerve damage in my feet, so I'm literally not cut out for long marches and stuff like that. I also get the shakes in high stress situations, so I would likely be a liability in a time of war. I'm not cut out for combat, and I'm definitely not puting military life on a pedestal, although I do think it is a great cinematic scene that I can enjoy. It definitely doesn't inspire me to join the military though or anything like that, although I also have no disrespect for people who have been in the forces.
edit: sorry for all the edits, but a lot of what I write is a work in progress.