@_Connacht_ Charisma is the leadership stat. Its how well you can inspire others to follow you. Who exactly would follow a disabled ranger who can lose control and go bserk at the drop of a hat?
I think that a lot of people in this forum would do.
Joking aside, I was talking about force of will, not inspiring leadership, they are two different things. He still has a charisma of 9, which I said is below average although not bad, it would be normal if somebody wouldn't follow him (it should be noted however that the epilogue from ToB tells that Minsc founded a party named Justice Fist...)
But I also wonder, Xan has a charisma of 16, yet he's so uninspiring and gloomy (who could follow someone who says that our quest's invain?), is it an inconsistency?
But I also wonder, Xan has a charisma of 16, yet he's so uninspiring and gloomy (who could follow someone who says that our quest's invain?), is it an inconsistency?
I personally feel that it is an inconsistency, yes. To be fair though, even TSR/WotC seem to have changed their minds on what exactly Charisma represents over the years. The bit I wrote about how Charisma also encompasses your determination and force of will was introduced largely in 3rd Edition, where the DMG states that any character reduced to 0 Charisma lapses into a catatonic state, totally devoid of any will to live. So, going back to Baldur's Gate, made as it was during a time when 2nd Ed was still the primary edition, they were still using the "high Charisma = well-spoken, charming people!" approach, and Xan, despite his pessimism, does have a certain appeal to him. To some people anyway.
He is an enchanter and those have attribute requirements of 16 charisma. Don't think much further about it.
But if you must then consider that for charm spells you need to be able to focus your charisma onto a person to achieve the goal of the spell. So maybe he has deep inside very charismatic abilities but he never expresses it in speech.
One thing I always wanted to have is blocking wizards from spells if they do not have proper attributes to understand them.
Particularly I would like to see good inventory management. I think Pathfinder did it right by creating a single inventory list with encumbrance calculated by the entire party stats. It's better than managing the inventory of every character. Multiple sorting orders and the ability to search something by name would be welcome as well.
But I also wonder, Xan has a charisma of 16, yet he's so uninspiring and gloomy (who could follow someone who says that our quest's invain?), is it an inconsistency?
I personally feel that it is an inconsistency, yes. To be fair though, even TSR/WotC seem to have changed their minds on what exactly Charisma represents over the years. The bit I wrote about how Charisma also encompasses your determination and force of will was introduced largely in 3rd Edition, where the DMG states that any character reduced to 0 Charisma lapses into a catatonic state, totally devoid of any will to live. So, going back to Baldur's Gate, made as it was during a time when 2nd Ed was still the primary edition, they were still using the "high Charisma = well-spoken, charming people!" approach, and Xan, despite his pessimism, does have a certain appeal to him. To some people anyway.
We do not know if he was like that before being incarcerated underground. Maybe he has PTSD.
But I also wonder, Xan has a charisma of 16, yet he's so uninspiring and gloomy (who could follow someone who says that our quest's invain?), is it an inconsistency?
I personally feel that it is an inconsistency, yes. To be fair though, even TSR/WotC seem to have changed their minds on what exactly Charisma represents over the years. The bit I wrote about how Charisma also encompasses your determination and force of will was introduced largely in 3rd Edition, where the DMG states that any character reduced to 0 Charisma lapses into a catatonic state, totally devoid of any will to live. So, going back to Baldur's Gate, made as it was during a time when 2nd Ed was still the primary edition, they were still using the "high Charisma = well-spoken, charming people!" approach, and Xan, despite his pessimism, does have a certain appeal to him. To some people anyway.
It is admittedly mostly headcanon but I see it like this:
He fully believes that the world is doomed. But his will is strong enough to fight against this nihilism and work as an adventurer in a, for him, desperate effort to stop the tide of doom.
He has a dark outlook, but also has a strong sense of self that keeps him fighting in the face of meaninglesness..
@_Connacht_ Charisma is the leadership stat. Its how well you can inspire others to follow you. Who exactly would follow a disabled ranger who can lose control and go bserk at the drop of a hat?
I think that a lot of people in this forum would do.
Joking aside, I was talking about force of will, not inspiring leadership, they are two different things. He still has a charisma of 9, which I said is below average although not bad, it would be normal if somebody wouldn't follow him (it should be noted however that the epilogue from ToB tells that Minsc founded a party named Justice Fist...)
But I also wonder, Xan has a charisma of 16, yet he's so uninspiring and gloomy (who could follow someone who says that our quest's invain?), is it an inconsistency?
Bi-polar people can be some of the most magnetic personalities of all. Their cards are all on the table face-up at all times. There's something strangely appealing about that...
Bi-polar characters can be some of the most magnetic personalities of all. In general Bipolar people can have great problems to adjust and maintain long and meaningful relations with other people, work problems, monetary problems... if left untreated. You can have a normal and fruitful life if you have professional advice or strong help, tho. So, not appealing unless you are in a book, IMHO.
But I also wonder, Xan has a charisma of 16, yet he's so uninspiring and gloomy (who could follow someone who says that our quest's invain?), is it an inconsistency?
I personally feel that it is an inconsistency, yes. To be fair though, even TSR/WotC seem to have changed their minds on what exactly Charisma represents over the years. The bit I wrote about how Charisma also encompasses your determination and force of will was introduced largely in 3rd Edition, where the DMG states that any character reduced to 0 Charisma lapses into a catatonic state, totally devoid of any will to live. So, going back to Baldur's Gate, made as it was during a time when 2nd Ed was still the primary edition, they were still using the "high Charisma = well-spoken, charming people!" approach, and Xan, despite his pessimism, does have a certain appeal to him. To some people anyway.
It is admittedly mostly headcanon but I see it like this:
He fully believes that the world is doomed. But his will is strong enough to fight against this nihilism and work as an adventurer in a, for him, desperate effort to stop the tide of doom.
He has a dark outlook, but also has a strong sense of self that keeps him fighting in the face of meaninglesness..
Yeah, he is dutiful indeed. Has to be, with all the "moonblade wielder" implications.
Is an unpopular opinion, but i would love to see an D&D campaign in a steampunk setting or spelljammer setting. D&D has much more options than just "high medieval fantasy"...
Yeah, he is dutiful indeed. Has to be, with all the "moonblade wielder" implications.
That's a good point. Don't moonblades choose their wielders and they always have to be exemplary characters in some way?
I've all figured it out: Moonblades are the emo cousin of Lilarcor. Almost as pointless too, if not for the pointy end of the blade.
Apropos: one feature I want to see is switching seasons. Currently replaying Skyrim and god damn am I now spoiled by Pathfinder: Kingmaker's seasonal overworld changes.
Fix tridents so they actually have a purpose over spears. I understand why WotC didn't make them a D8, but it's pretty silly that they have the exact same properties as a spear in 5e except they cost way more and are martial weapons.
Fix tridents so they actually have a purpose over spears. I understand why WotC didn't make them a D8, but it's pretty silly that they have the exact same properties as a spear in 5e except they cost way more and are martial weapons.
Isn't the basic weapon in D&D an unfair mess in general?
Inspired more by the magical polyhedrons of the dice than by any historical rationale?
The value of a weapon type is defined by the availability of a good custom weapon in the game world.
Fix tridents so they actually have a purpose over spears. I understand why WotC didn't make them a D8, but it's pretty silly that they have the exact same properties as a spear in 5e except they cost way more and are martial weapons.
Isn't the basic weapon in D&D an unfair mess in general?
Inspired more by the magical polyhedrons of the dice than by any historical rationale?
The value of a weapon type is defined by the availability of a good custom weapon in the game world.
I mean dnd is a game that has two weapon wielding- a very ineffective form of fighting in the real world. Historic rationale doesn't really factor into it.
5E heavily restricts access to magic weapons. We'll see what they do with BG3, but at the moment the way the trident works makes them an unnecessarily weak choice compared to other martial and simple weapons.
From a real life perspective, I think the only advantage a trident has over a spear is due to its traditional use in fishing, where the trident's extra tines help compensate for light refraction in water when attempting to spear fish. Even in an underwater fight, you'd probably be better off with a plain old spear than a trident.
Having the trident in addition to a pike, longspear, shortspear and javelin lineup would make more sense imho. That eay each weapon type would have its pros and cons.
A trident is not a weapon of war and never has been (in the real world I mean). I'd rather see additional polearms such as glaives, billhooks etc but I guess if they are not in the rulebooks, my wishes are in vain.
In Games, the only way to make inferior weapon types valid is to add a unique magic version that's beefed up so that ppl can aim for it in their second or third playthrough with meta knowledge, like having a trident where each tip deals a different damage type, ie poison, fire, electricty where a spear might just have one.
Maybe not trident but a pitchfork was used regularly by farmers when they needed to defend the land of their sovereign.
In addition to pitchforks, tridents were traditionally used in medieval warfare throughout Korea. The only difference between the classical roman/greece trident and the korean dangpa was that the middle tip was enlarged.
Maybe not trident but a pitchfork was used regularly by farmers when they needed to defend the land of their sovereign.
In addition to pitchforks, tridents were traditionally used in medieval warfare throughout Korea. The only difference between the classical roman/greece trident and the korean dangpa was that the middle tip was enlarged.
Ah interesting. Googled it and this version sure looks like it could perhaps be a martial weapon since it might take some more skill than a regular spear if you wanna lock your opponents blades with the "fork". Though this of course is not part of the weapon in the games, I assume. A 'trident' offering basic low damage rolls but grants a feat while wielding it (disarm?) would be cool.
@Skatan Similar of how the farming scythe was later on repurposed into the war scythe, the pitchfork too saw a similar change. For some reason though not many seem to have heard of the military fork. Which is a shame. Wielding a fork in battle is all kinds of awesome, methinks.
I never really understood the simple, martial, whatever categorisation. The groups are too large and the weapon types are too diverse. It always felt to me that they bunched the groups a bit into categories of damage amount and made excuses to put them in the group. But if you know how to fight with a dagger does not mean you know how to fight with a hammer or a javelin.
So simple or martial, regardless, pitchforks, scythes and broomsticks are cool.
Ahh, yes... hammers. As if every single commoner household wouldn't have light hammers lying around for daily life repairments. I'm guinely interested what the guys over at WotC smoked when they decided it was a martial weapon, of all things.
Ahh, yes... hammers. As if every single commoner household wouldn't have light hammers lying around for daily life repairments. I'm guinely interested what the guys over at WotC smoked when they decided it was a martial weapon, of all things.
Light hammers are simple weapons, Warhammers are martial.
Unrelated, but also somehow they weigh the same but one does 2 average damage more than the other.
@elminster Not sure which edition you're talking here, but the light hammer has afaik always been a martial weapon. From D&D 3rd edition and 3.5th edition to even Pathfinder 1st and 2nd edition. The Forgotten Realms wiki too lists it as such. The difference from the warhammer being is that it counts as a light weapon and can be thrown.
Comments
I think that a lot of people in this forum would do.
Joking aside, I was talking about force of will, not inspiring leadership, they are two different things. He still has a charisma of 9, which I said is below average although not bad, it would be normal if somebody wouldn't follow him (it should be noted however that the epilogue from ToB tells that Minsc founded a party named Justice Fist...)
But I also wonder, Xan has a charisma of 16, yet he's so uninspiring and gloomy (who could follow someone who says that our quest's invain?), is it an inconsistency?
I personally feel that it is an inconsistency, yes. To be fair though, even TSR/WotC seem to have changed their minds on what exactly Charisma represents over the years. The bit I wrote about how Charisma also encompasses your determination and force of will was introduced largely in 3rd Edition, where the DMG states that any character reduced to 0 Charisma lapses into a catatonic state, totally devoid of any will to live. So, going back to Baldur's Gate, made as it was during a time when 2nd Ed was still the primary edition, they were still using the "high Charisma = well-spoken, charming people!" approach, and Xan, despite his pessimism, does have a certain appeal to him. To some people anyway.
But if you must then consider that for charm spells you need to be able to focus your charisma onto a person to achieve the goal of the spell. So maybe he has deep inside very charismatic abilities but he never expresses it in speech.
One thing I always wanted to have is blocking wizards from spells if they do not have proper attributes to understand them.
We do not know if he was like that before being incarcerated underground. Maybe he has PTSD.
It is admittedly mostly headcanon but I see it like this:
He fully believes that the world is doomed. But his will is strong enough to fight against this nihilism and work as an adventurer in a, for him, desperate effort to stop the tide of doom.
He has a dark outlook, but also has a strong sense of self that keeps him fighting in the face of meaninglesness..
Bi-polar people can be some of the most magnetic personalities of all. Their cards are all on the table face-up at all times. There's something strangely appealing about that...
Yeah, he is dutiful indeed. Has to be, with all the "moonblade wielder" implications.
Very cold?
That's a good point. Don't moonblades choose their wielders and they always have to be exemplary characters in some way?
Apropos: one feature I want to see is switching seasons. Currently replaying Skyrim and god damn am I now spoiled by Pathfinder: Kingmaker's seasonal overworld changes.
Isn't the basic weapon in D&D an unfair mess in general?
Inspired more by the magical polyhedrons of the dice than by any historical rationale?
The value of a weapon type is defined by the availability of a good custom weapon in the game world.
I mean dnd is a game that has two weapon wielding- a very ineffective form of fighting in the real world. Historic rationale doesn't really factor into it.
5E heavily restricts access to magic weapons. We'll see what they do with BG3, but at the moment the way the trident works makes them an unnecessarily weak choice compared to other martial and simple weapons.
In Games, the only way to make inferior weapon types valid is to add a unique magic version that's beefed up so that ppl can aim for it in their second or third playthrough with meta knowledge, like having a trident where each tip deals a different damage type, ie poison, fire, electricty where a spear might just have one.
In addition to pitchforks, tridents were traditionally used in medieval warfare throughout Korea. The only difference between the classical roman/greece trident and the korean dangpa was that the middle tip was enlarged.
This wouldn't make it a martial weapon though.
Ah interesting. Googled it and this version sure looks like it could perhaps be a martial weapon since it might take some more skill than a regular spear if you wanna lock your opponents blades with the "fork". Though this of course is not part of the weapon in the games, I assume. A 'trident' offering basic low damage rolls but grants a feat while wielding it (disarm?) would be cool.
So simple or martial, regardless, pitchforks, scythes and broomsticks are cool.
Light hammers are simple weapons, Warhammers are martial.
Unrelated, but also somehow they weigh the same but one does 2 average damage more than the other.
https://roll20.net/compendium/dnd5e/Weapons#content
I guess they changed it from what it was earlier.