It always seemed odd that the long-lived races weren't the ones with the option to dual-class and short-lived humans (with an oftentimes short attention span) not the ones who multi-classed. Am i alone in thinking this is quite backwards?
@actDave Virtually every ancient culture has a keeper of tales, songs, and lore. The idea that elves don't have magical minstrels, is patently ridiculous.
Yes of course. But the combination of Bard skills are a lot more diverse than just related to lore and song. It is easy to justify limiting them to a single school or culture.
I actually really like the Bard kits that adapt them to a broader variety of cultures and settings. But I think we, as players, make a mistake when we start to consider that adaption an entitlement. Its up to the game designer or DM to decide how those classes/kits, really how our characters relate to the world they live in. I don't think we as players should ever get to insist we HAVE to play a particular type of character. I've always been partial to Paladins myself, but if a DM says "sorry, no LG warrior deities in this setting"; well, it is what it is and I need to come up with a plan b. The closest I ever came to that was a game where the DM told me Paladins in his world couldn't marry. I was floored. I played a NG cleric who had no such restrictions...
I go back and forth on race restricted classes. On one hand I get that certain races don't have RP reasons to be a certain class. On the other hand I love characters like Mazzy who attempt to break these rules.
Well I'm flattered! And I do allow Halfling Paladins...
I actually do worry about the rules quite a bit. But my rules. I see core 2E as a great inspiration, but not gospel.
@kamuizin and what happens when any race can dual class? humans will be the weakest, im not talking about now, I was talking about if all the restrictions were taken out, there would be no reason to be human, because if any race could dual class, all races can do things better than humans can, and that is why humans get more class options, because that is all they have going for them
Roleplay, I am betting 90% of players will still play human even if it is the "weakest" (and honestly it is mostly a wash, the racial bonuses are pretty insignificant) I know I would be playing a human multiclass if all racial restrictions were removed.
PS. Note I didn't ask this to be made the default (although I think it should), I asked this to be made optional. What do you care if I mod my game to allow it?
...i think the reason why say halflings cant be monks say is because punching someone in the shin isnt going to do that much damage in the grand scheme of things compared to a roundhouse to the face from taller characters...
You clearly have never gotten into a fight with a midget that knows karate; there are few things more dangerous in this world than that. Realistically though, a halfling could learn take-downs and similar things to hurt an enemy as a monk.
In DnD*, smaller size means better attack and defense. So if you compare a 18 STR and 18 DEX human to a 16 STR 20 DEX halfling - both maxed out - the halfling gets the better combined stat bonuses at +4 AB and +6 AC versus the human at +4 AB and +4 AC. And Strongheart Halflings even get the bonus feat, because halflings are just that awesome.
*Meaning 3rd Ed DnD, the edition I have the most experience with
And the halfling also does 2 less damage (1 from strength, 1 average from smaller weapon). So it roughly balances out in the end (do to Power Attack enforcing a rough equivalence between attack and damage bonuses).
And for the record, I still don't see how cultural differences could possibly be a factor when all possible player characters are raised in exactly the same culture and circumstances. If it weren't for that, well, I'd still be highly skeptical of the restrictions, but at least then I would see the logic.
And for the record, I still don't see how cultural differences could possibly be a factor when all possible player characters are raised in exactly the same culture and circumstances. If it weren't for that, well, I'd still be highly skeptical of the restrictions, but at least then I would see the logic.
It's like I was saying, most games take place in or near city-states that are extremely cosmopolitan, so it really does not make much sense that a halfling, dwarf, or half-orc could not be trained as a Wizard or Bard.
And for the record, I still don't see how cultural differences could possibly be a factor when all possible player characters are raised in exactly the same culture and circumstances. If it weren't for that, well, I'd still be highly skeptical of the restrictions, but at least then I would see the logic.
It's like I was saying, most games take place in or near city-states that are extremely cosmopolitan, so it really does not make much sense that a halfling, dwarf, or half-orc could not be trained as a Wizard or Bard.
Thats great for NPCs, but a great big hero PC is not going to let something like culture limit them. Especially not if they are an orphan/amnesiac/other standard fantasy background/etc. In the case of BG2 the PC was not raised by their race's culture, they were raised by a human wizard called gorian in a human town called candlekeep.
Thats great for NPCs, but a great big hero PC is not going to let something like culture limit them. Especially not if they are an orphan/amnesiac/other standard fantasy background/etc. In the case of BG2 the PC was not raised by their race's culture, they were raised by a human wizard called gorian in a human town called candlekeep.
Cosmopolitan means at ease with a variety of cultures. I'm agreeing with you that even not taking into account how special the PC is, it makes perfect sense for somebody in the Baldur's Gate area to have access to most, if not all, of the classes.
The reason was game balance. And other races sometimes just don't have the mindset to become a certain class. Elves for Druids and Rangers, for instance. Just about any but Human for Paladins (Half-elves, who are half-human, could be druids and Rangers- again, mindset. Monks were human again because of Mindset, and they were vanishingly rare in 1e, when they were introduced. This was because of the incredible stats you had to roll (on 3d6, mind you, not 4d6 drop the lowest!) to qualify for the class. It was second only to Paladin for rarity, and there was no "Okay, choose the class you want to be, and then roll and if you don't meet the minimums for the class, we'll give you the minimum you need." It was, "If you don't get the rolls, you can't play the class." Period, end of story.
I have explained this elsewhere, but for certain classes, it comes down to attitudes and mindsets- the way certain races think about the world that determines the classes they can be. A Paladin exemplifies a human mindset about fighting evil that other races don't generally have. Other races can have Knights, for example, but not Paladins. And yes, CHARNAME was probably exposed to other members of his/her race in Candlekeep, and probably talked to them and was exposed to their attitudes about the world and thought to him/herself, "Yeah, that makes more sense to me than this human way of thinking..." from the time that they were very young.
The sort of "Power Creep" through the editions of the game is kinda what turned me off to 3rd and 4th edition. In original D&D and AD&D, you were pretty much a regular joe character- rarely had high stats and numbers in the single digits were common as dirt. My first D&D character had a 14 Strength, and she was a fighter. And that was one of her higher stats- maybe even the Highest. In 2e, with the addition of 4d6 drop the lowest, your characters turned from Normal Joes into Heroes. You were better than ordinary people, in stats and abilities, and they took away the stat maximums for sex and race (Female Halflings were limited to 14 Strength in 1e. Male Halflings 17.) By 3e, your characters become Superheroes, with increasing numbers of powers, no limits by race. New races, classes and prestige classes proliferate to the point of insanity (I have 53 WOTC sourcebooks for 3e- don't tell me this didn't happen and the powers of the characters seem more like something out of a computer fighting game than an RPG. This only got worse in 4e when D&D seemed to turn into a tactical miniatures combat game rather than an RPG. (Yes, I know some DMs don't necessarily run their games that way, But I have seen a lot of them do so.) Players care less about the character they are playing and more about what cool powers their characters get- and those powers have proliferated. Instead of a feat, you get At-will, daily, encounter and who knows what else powers. It's like WOW, with certain powers having a "Cooldown". But if I wanted to play WOW, I'd play that- not D&D.
Okay, let me get back on topic. There were roleplaying and balance reasons to have classes nonhumans couldn't play. Balance reasons were because if you had a choice to play, say, a half-orc Paladin, who got bonuses to strength and whatnot, and could have a 19 strength right out of the gate, or a human who was limited to 18/00 Strength and no stat bonuses- which sounds better? Most powergamers would choose the Orc for the bonuses they got and pass the human right by. And humans are supposed to be the most numerous, vigorous race- which is also why they limited the races to certain levels- an elf who can live 600 or 1000 years has more time to adventure and gain levels than humans. How could humans compete? So they limited the races to certain levels so that human characters could get a "fair shake". That's why- to give humans a chance in a world where otherwise they'd always be a day late and a dollar short compared to demihumans. (And powergamers aka "Munchkins", have always been around- there have always been people who try to game the rules so their character is the most Powerful.)
How would it unbalance the game if I play a gnome necromancer? Why can't I be a human and multiclass? Are you telling me no elf in the history of ever has ever retrained (aka dual classed)?
As far as I can tell the race class restrictions are completely arbitrary fluff that unnecessarily restricts roleplaying. But I haven't seen a mod make them all go away.
That's because it was always hardcoded until EE. A mod will address this... tomorrow.
Thats great for NPCs, but a great big hero PC is not going to let something like culture limit them. Especially not if they are an orphan/amnesiac/other standard fantasy background/etc. In the case of BG2 the PC was not raised by their race's culture, they were raised by a human wizard called gorian in a human town called candlekeep.
Cosmopolitan means at ease with a variety of cultures. I'm agreeing with you that even not taking into account how special the PC is, it makes perfect sense for somebody in the Baldur's Gate area to have access to most, if not all, of the classes.
What balance? The problem with the balance argument is that it doesn't actually exist. Take half-orc, they get +1 str +1 con -2 int. They are only allowed to take fighter, cleric, thief, barbarian.
Now, you might argue about whether or not paladins or rangers are more powerful than fighters so it is a matter of balance to ban them... Same with druids (although honestly as far as I am concerned the differences are insignificant).
But I don't think anyone will argue that banning half-orc mages was done for the sake of BALANCE. A half orc is a terrible mage, they get -2 to int. It is clearly done as a "half orcs are too dumb to be mages"... except you have a bunch of NPC orc mages fighting you on occasion.
And lets say, hypothetically, that it was balance... does a +1 to an ability score make a big difference? rolls can put you between 3 and 18 before that +1 and honestly, even if it let you get a char with 19 so what. The bonus is small enough as to not justify not roleplaying and choosing the race YOU WANT rather then the optimal race for the most min-maxed stats.
The reason was a failed atempt in attend to game balance, the error was corrected, in 3° edition.
Even in the AD&D rules, the restrictions most of the time don't fit well. Try to justify them is more or less try to make an logical structure for the mistake. Humans are supposed to be varied and quickly to learn (in reason of their short life time). The fact AD&D system don't represent these bonus that humans are entitled to have doesn't meant the race is weak, it means in fact the race is poor portrayed only.
Unfortunally AD&D rules are already a forgotten issue and the game must abide by it. I don't know until which point the rules must be followed (as a chaotic neutral Anomen for example is clearly a break in the rules but is official) but if some of them can be bend (or negotiated with WotC) the game would get some versality.
I have some ideas, and probally a lot of people maybe doesn't agree with them but anyway here it goes:
Give humans a random bonus to stats at a set level. For example, at reaching level 5 (just to make the example), a character get a bonus to one of his stats, this should be saved hidden in the game strings in character creation, so people would not reload to change the bonus, neither would recreate the character if they don't like the bonus.
The idea can be developed more further, making 2 or 3 times of bonus with chances of penality also, for example, each time you get a bonus stats you also get a chance to lose a random stat too.
The reason was a failed atempt in attend to game balance, the error was corrected, in 3° edition.
Even in the AD&D rules, the restrictions most of the time don't fit well. Try to justify them is more or less try to make an logical structure for the mistake. Humans are supposed to be varied and quickly to learn (in reason of their short life time). The fact AD&D system don't represent these bonus that humans are entitled to have doesn't meant the race is weak, it means in fact the race is poor portrayed only.
Unfortunally AD&D rules are already a forgotten issue and the game must abide by it. I don't know until which point the rules must be followed (as a chaotic neutral Anomen for example is clearly a break in the rules but is official) but if some of them can be bend (or negotiated with WotC) the game would get some versality.
I have some ideas, and probally a lot of people maybe doesn't agree with them but anyway here it goes:
Give humans a random bonus to stats at a set level. For example, at reaching level 5 (just to make the example), a character get a bonus to one of his stats, this should be saved hidden in the game strings in character creation, so people would not reload to change the bonus, neither would recreate the character if they don't like the bonus.
The idea can be developed more further, making 2 or 3 times of bonus with chances of penality also, for example, each time you get a bonus stats you also get a chance to lose a random stat too.
I would be completely opposed to more changes that make this game less like AD&D. especially in this day when all new games are destined to be one of the newer rule sets, a huge part of BG's appeal is that it still uses "my" version of D&D. Previous polls at this site indicate AD&D is the preferred system for at least half the gamers at this site. There are plenty of other games for those who prefer the later rules.
LadyRhian I did want to clarify on one point. Straight 3d6 were a feature of original D&D. By the time 1E came along, the DMG gave a choice of several methods for rolling scores; including 4d6, keep the high three and arrange in order per player's preference or 6d6, keep the high three but roll in order. The point just being, except for the original White Box game, PCs have alway been at least a little "above average". But I completely agree as we've moved to 3E and later game systems the power level has spiraled dramatically. And the sense of starting fragile and ordinary, and having to earn any exceptionalism has been lost.
I would be completely opposed to more changes that make this game less like AD&D. especially in this day when all new games are destined to be one of the newer rule sets, a huge part of BG's appeal is that it still uses "my" version of D&D. Previous polls at this site indicate AD&D is the preferred system for at least half the gamers at this site. There are plenty of other games for those who prefer the later rules.
So far the discussion is about mods not about modifying the default gameplay
The point just being, except for the original White Box game, PCs have alway been at least a little "above average". But I completely agree as we've moved to 3E and later game systems the power level has spiraled dramatically. And the sense of starting fragile and ordinary, and having to earn any exceptionalism has been lost.
It hasn't been lost, it has been intentionally discarded. A lot of people like playing someone who isn't completely insane, and a completely average joe going out and being an adventurer despite the horrifically high chance of death is a symptom of insanity. Also, worth mentioning that in 4E the max levels are SIGNIFICANTLY weaker than max levels in previous editions.
My problem with the balance concern, and the reason I don't find it credible, is not that there isn't a current or potential balance issue. There is, and it's significant. But it's not in the class restrictions. It's in the races themselves. Half-orcs would make better paladins than humans? They sure would. But they're better fighters, too. Much better. And yet half-orcs are allowed to be fighters. That's not balanced at all. Allowing half-orcs to be paladins wouldn't create a new balance problem, it would just extend an existing balance problem to the one class that happens not to suffer it. The solution isn't to avoid extending that problem, it's to fix the problem in the first place by giving humans something to make them worth playing.
Now, as to the recent poll on the value of adhering to PnP... as I recall, "it's somewhat important" was by far the most common vote, followed by "it's unimportant" and then "it's really important." What I take from that is that we shouldn't deviate from PnP without good reason, but it certainly doesn't tell us that we should always adhere to PnP rules. So it's really a matter of whether you consider roleplaying freedom to be a good reason. Personally, I can hardly think of a better one.
Added new components for EE games: Remove Summoning Cap for Regular Summons, Remove Racial Restrictions for Classes, Remove Racial Restrictions for Kits, and Alter Dual/Multiclass Restrictions
@CamDawg That's as exciting as the new patch. Big thanks to you and the rest of the modding community . Your collective efforts are largely (Mostly? Entirely?) responsible for this 15 year-old game's continued popularity.
Way back when Gary and Frank and the rest were thinking up this system, they wanted the world to be primarily Human dominant but with only a few elves and dwarves and such scattered around (in the highest Tolkeinesque style). Therefore, the race/class limitations were designed to facilitate the balance such that only a few players would want to play these races. Hence silly things like Dwarves could only go to level 11 as Fighters etc... were invented and weaved into the game system (basic and to some degree advanced). Obviously subsequent versions mitigated this to a great degree, but you still see some of it even in 2E.
Not sure if that is a "Logical reason" but it was the direction they originally wanted the game to go.
For the record, I think trying to control race frequency is a very reasonable goal (in fantasy games, just so no one mistakes me for a eugenicist). I just don't think it's well served by race/class restrictions. Such restrictions do affect race frequency to some extent, but only so far as "everyone who wants to play a paladin will be human." On the whole, the don't really work very well, especially when three of the four archetypal classes are open to everyone. Such restrictions have a severe restrictiveness/effectiveness tradeoff with frequency that makes me dubious about using race/class restrictions as a method of frequency control. Add to that the balance issues that actually discouraged people from playing humans, and the whole thing just doesn't work very well.
Honestly, race frequency in rpgs is a hard problem to tackle. To my knowledge, it's still largely unsolved. Some players, myself included, will naturally gravitate towards humans when all else is roughly equal, but other players will expressly avoid playing humans because they find humans boring. Levying large bonuses and large penalties for non-human races may help to steer people towards humans, but ultimately large modifiers tend to strongly pigeonhole players (see Shadowrun trolls), and often don't make a lot of sense when applied to some of the more human-like fantasy races.
Comments
I actually really like the Bard kits that adapt them to a broader variety of cultures and settings. But I think we, as players, make a mistake when we start to consider that adaption an entitlement. Its up to the game designer or DM to decide how those classes/kits, really how our characters relate to the world they live in. I don't think we as players should ever get to insist we HAVE to play a particular type of character. I've always been partial to Paladins myself, but if a DM says "sorry, no LG warrior deities in this setting"; well, it is what it is and I need to come up with a plan b.
The closest I ever came to that was a game where the DM told me Paladins in his world couldn't marry. I was floored. I played a NG cleric who had no such restrictions...
I actually do worry about the rules quite a bit. But my rules. I see core 2E as a great inspiration, but not gospel.
I know I would be playing a human multiclass if all racial restrictions were removed.
PS. Note I didn't ask this to be made the default (although I think it should), I asked this to be made optional.
What do you care if I mod my game to allow it?
You clearly have never gotten into a fight with a midget that knows karate; there are few things more dangerous in this world than that. Realistically though, a halfling could learn take-downs and similar things to hurt an enemy as a monk.
*Meaning 3rd Ed DnD, the edition I have the most experience with
And for the record, I still don't see how cultural differences could possibly be a factor when all possible player characters are raised in exactly the same culture and circumstances. If it weren't for that, well, I'd still be highly skeptical of the restrictions, but at least then I would see the logic.
I have explained this elsewhere, but for certain classes, it comes down to attitudes and mindsets- the way certain races think about the world that determines the classes they can be. A Paladin exemplifies a human mindset about fighting evil that other races don't generally have. Other races can have Knights, for example, but not Paladins. And yes, CHARNAME was probably exposed to other members of his/her race in Candlekeep, and probably talked to them and was exposed to their attitudes about the world and thought to him/herself, "Yeah, that makes more sense to me than this human way of thinking..." from the time that they were very young.
The sort of "Power Creep" through the editions of the game is kinda what turned me off to 3rd and 4th edition. In original D&D and AD&D, you were pretty much a regular joe character- rarely had high stats and numbers in the single digits were common as dirt. My first D&D character had a 14 Strength, and she was a fighter. And that was one of her higher stats- maybe even the Highest. In 2e, with the addition of 4d6 drop the lowest, your characters turned from Normal Joes into Heroes. You were better than ordinary people, in stats and abilities, and they took away the stat maximums for sex and race (Female Halflings were limited to 14 Strength in 1e. Male Halflings 17.) By 3e, your characters become Superheroes, with increasing numbers of powers, no limits by race. New races, classes and prestige classes proliferate to the point of insanity (I have 53 WOTC sourcebooks for 3e- don't tell me this didn't happen and the powers of the characters seem more like something out of a computer fighting game than an RPG. This only got worse in 4e when D&D seemed to turn into a tactical miniatures combat game rather than an RPG. (Yes, I know some DMs don't necessarily run their games that way, But I have seen a lot of them do so.) Players care less about the character they are playing and more about what cool powers their characters get- and those powers have proliferated. Instead of a feat, you get At-will, daily, encounter and who knows what else powers. It's like WOW, with certain powers having a "Cooldown". But if I wanted to play WOW, I'd play that- not D&D.
Okay, let me get back on topic. There were roleplaying and balance reasons to have classes nonhumans couldn't play. Balance reasons were because if you had a choice to play, say, a half-orc Paladin, who got bonuses to strength and whatnot, and could have a 19 strength right out of the gate, or a human who was limited to 18/00 Strength and no stat bonuses- which sounds better? Most powergamers would choose the Orc for the bonuses they got and pass the human right by. And humans are supposed to be the most numerous, vigorous race- which is also why they limited the races to certain levels- an elf who can live 600 or 1000 years has more time to adventure and gain levels than humans. How could humans compete? So they limited the races to certain levels so that human characters could get a "fair shake". That's why- to give humans a chance in a world where otherwise they'd always be a day late and a dollar short compared to demihumans. (And powergamers aka "Munchkins", have always been around- there have always been people who try to game the rules so their character is the most Powerful.)
Take half-orc, they get +1 str +1 con -2 int.
They are only allowed to take fighter, cleric, thief, barbarian.
Now, you might argue about whether or not paladins or rangers are more powerful than fighters so it is a matter of balance to ban them... Same with druids (although honestly as far as I am concerned the differences are insignificant).
But I don't think anyone will argue that banning half-orc mages was done for the sake of BALANCE. A half orc is a terrible mage, they get -2 to int. It is clearly done as a "half orcs are too dumb to be mages"... except you have a bunch of NPC orc mages fighting you on occasion.
And lets say, hypothetically, that it was balance... does a +1 to an ability score make a big difference? rolls can put you between 3 and 18 before that +1 and honestly, even if it let you get a char with 19 so what. The bonus is small enough as to not justify not roleplaying and choosing the race YOU WANT rather then the optimal race for the most min-maxed stats.
[spoiler]That is sarcasm by the way. There has to be some race restrictions. [spoiler]
Even in the AD&D rules, the restrictions most of the time don't fit well. Try to justify them is more or less try to make an logical structure for the mistake. Humans are supposed to be varied and quickly to learn (in reason of their short life time). The fact AD&D system don't represent these bonus that humans are entitled to have doesn't meant the race is weak, it means in fact the race is poor portrayed only.
Unfortunally AD&D rules are already a forgotten issue and the game must abide by it. I don't know until which point the rules must be followed (as a chaotic neutral Anomen for example is clearly a break in the rules but is official) but if some of them can be bend (or negotiated with WotC) the game would get some versality.
I have some ideas, and probally a lot of people maybe doesn't agree with them but anyway here it goes:
Give humans a random bonus to stats at a set level. For example, at reaching level 5 (just to make the example), a character get a bonus to one of his stats, this should be saved hidden in the game strings in character creation, so people would not reload to change the bonus, neither would recreate the character if they don't like the bonus.
The idea can be developed more further, making 2 or 3 times of bonus with chances of penality also, for example, each time you get a bonus stats you also get a chance to lose a random stat too.
Previous polls at this site indicate AD&D is the preferred system for at least half the gamers at this site. There are plenty of other games for those who prefer the later rules.
The point just being, except for the original White Box game, PCs have alway been at least a little "above average". But I completely agree as we've moved to 3E and later game systems the power level has spiraled dramatically. And the sense of starting fragile and ordinary, and having to earn any exceptionalism has been lost.
Also, worth mentioning that in 4E the max levels are SIGNIFICANTLY weaker than max levels in previous editions.
Gentlemen and ladies, I wash my hands of this weirdness!
Now, as to the recent poll on the value of adhering to PnP... as I recall, "it's somewhat important" was by far the most common vote, followed by "it's unimportant" and then "it's really important." What I take from that is that we shouldn't deviate from PnP without good reason, but it certainly doesn't tell us that we should always adhere to PnP rules. So it's really a matter of whether you consider roleplaying freedom to be a good reason. Personally, I can hardly think of a better one.
You still need the new patch first, though.
From tweakpack v14 changenotes
Way back when Gary and Frank and the rest were thinking up this system, they wanted the world to be primarily Human dominant but with only a few elves and dwarves and such scattered around (in the highest Tolkeinesque style). Therefore, the race/class limitations were designed to facilitate the balance such that only a few players would want to play these races. Hence silly things like Dwarves could only go to level 11 as Fighters etc... were invented and weaved into the game system (basic and to some degree advanced). Obviously subsequent versions mitigated this to a great degree, but you still see some of it even in 2E.
Not sure if that is a "Logical reason" but it was the direction they originally wanted the game to go.
Honestly, race frequency in rpgs is a hard problem to tackle. To my knowledge, it's still largely unsolved. Some players, myself included, will naturally gravitate towards humans when all else is roughly equal, but other players will expressly avoid playing humans because they find humans boring. Levying large bonuses and large penalties for non-human races may help to steer people towards humans, but ultimately large modifiers tend to strongly pigeonhole players (see Shadowrun trolls), and often don't make a lot of sense when applied to some of the more human-like fantasy races.