31 replies to this topic

[Wintershade]

I'm just being curious - how come clerics/priests in Baldur's Gate 2 aren't allowed to use crossbow-type weapons?
I remember that was perfectly normal in Baldur's Gate 1, and now it appears that crossbows are rather useless as a weapon type (since classes which are allowed to use them are also allowed to use short bows and long bows, which seem to be more useful).

So I'm just asking...

BTW, is there a mod which changes that (which I'm not aware of)?

Edited by Wintershade, 15 November 2011 - 02:03 AM.

[Jarno Mikkola]

I remember that was perfectly normal in Baldur's Gate 1

And you remember wrong.
It's because the crossbow bolt has an edge...

BTW, is there a mod which changes that (which I'm not aware of)?

Well, there's Ashes of Embers, and it's remakes, like the B!Tweaks...

[Wintershade]

Right-o, I checked it in the meantime and I indeed do remember wrong.
I must have mixed it with some other game. Probably some D&D 3rd edition based one. Or whatever.

That's actually one of the main things I always found quite silly about AD&D 2nd Edition - the race/class/equipment restrictions.


Ah well. Asked a dumb question, and survived it

[berelinde]

In IWD2 and NWN2, clerics (and mages) can use crossbows. It's something that was implemented in 3E as part of the change from a blunt/pointy classification to a simple/martial classification. It's one of the few things about 3E that I prefer to 2E. It makes historical sense. Crossbows were widely used because they did not require the judgment that conventional bows required. They were slow as hells and without a winch, they required tremendous strength to cock, but you didn't had to correct for angle the way you did with a longbow. Just point and shoot.

[Yovaneth]

but you didn't had to correct for angle the way you did with a longbow. Just point and shoot.

Eeeee... almost. A decent crossbow has an almightly up-kick when you pull the trigger, so you need to aim down. Having used both, I prefer the longbow. Much more difficult to aim as you say, but far more effective at distance.

-Y-

[Wintershade]

It makes historical sense. Crossbows were widely used because they did not require the judgment that conventional bows required.

I wholeheartedly agree. As a person who trained fencing for almost a decade, I can confirm that the classification of weapons according to their ease or complexity of use is way more sensible than any other.

Edited by Wintershade, 15 November 2011 - 07:21 AM.

[Miloch]

It makes historical sense. Crossbows were widely used because they did not require the judgment that conventional bows required.

I wholeheartedly agree. As a person who trained fencing for almost a decade, I can confirm that the classification of weapons according to their ease or complexity of use is way more sensible than any other.

I have to disagree. Sure, a crossbow is relatively complex at a mechanical level and much more resembles a machine than a bow does. But why does that make it ok for priests to be able to use it? I far prefer the modified 2e rules (via kit handbooks etc.) that say clerics of a particular god can use whatever weapons their god says they can. Makes more sense than blanket restrictions and far more sense than blanket allowances (i.e. everyone being able to use everything, nevermind spellcasters already get spells that warriors don't etc.).

Edit: also crossbows are not entirely "useless." I seem to recall giving Safana a pip in xbow and equipping her with the crossbow of speed made her pretty lethal. Not as lethal as a 19 STR half-orc berserker, but still formidable.

Edited by Miloch, 20 November 2011 - 07:47 PM.

[Jarno Mikkola]

Edit: also crossbows are not entirely "useless." I seem to recall giving Safana a pip in xbow and equipping her with the crossbow of speed made her pretty lethal. Not as lethal as a 19 STR half-orc berserker, but still formidable.

That's cause in BG1'es the enemies hardly ever get a negative AC counts. And her Dex is 17, giving her the +3 damage and Thac0 bonus.

[Wintershade]

I have to disagree. Sure, a crossbow is relatively complex at a mechanical level and much more resembles a machine than a bow does. But why does that make it ok for priests to be able to use it?

Because it's easier to use, i.e. requires less training than a longbow or a longsword would, allowing clerics to put the training in such weapon into their already busy schedule.
Also, I find slings much more difficult to use than crossbows - at least the medieval slings - e.g. it was more difficult to take aim and actually hit something in the distance. But that's just my personal experience, YMMV.

I far prefer the modified 2e rules (via kit handbooks etc.) that say clerics of a particular god can use whatever weapons their god says they can. Makes more sense than blanket restrictions and far more sense than blanket allowances (i.e. everyone being able to use everything, nevermind spellcasters already get spells that warriors don't etc.).

I personally like the 3e and Pathfinder rules better - everyone can theoretically use anything, as long as they have the proficiency feats with the weapon/armour in question. Why wouldn't, e.g. a particular wizard or sorcerer be personally interested in using a longsword or a longbow, and indeed learn to use it? Of course, they'll never be as good as fighters with it, but why would the fact that they cast arcane magic "magically" make them absolutely unable to even try and swing a longsword or fire an arrow from a longbow?

As far as cleric kits are concerned, I agree - and in my games I always require clerics of particular gods to wield their favoured weapons, at least as the character's secondary weapon.

[Jarno Mikkola]

Why wouldn't, e.g. a particular wizard or sorcerer be personally interested in using a longsword or a longbow, and indeed learn to use it? Of course, they'll never be as good as fighters with it, but why would the fact that they cast arcane magic "magically" make them absolutely unable to even try and swing a longsword or fire an arrow from a longbow?

The rules do not disallow this ... for humans, as you can dual class from a fighter to a mage, after the first level.

[Choo Choo]

But then you're not a pureclass mage, Jarno, you have levels in the fighter class. Your argument is invalid.

[Jarno Mikkola]

But then you're not a pureclass mage, Jarno, you have levels in the fighter class. Your argument is invalid.

Erghm, have you seen/heard of very many mages using long bows ? Gandalf ? Elrond ? Elminster Ouh, and Elminster is a Fighter -> Rogue -> Cleric -> Mage.
The build is not a pure class mage anyway... it's a arcane archer if you want, and if you look that, you don't have to be a mage for that, a level of bard does fine at leasts for the requirements in Neverwinter E3.5 .

[Choo Choo]

...yes, but 1. We're talking about 2E, 2. We're talking about pure-class clerics or mages. That's the topic; why second edition clerics (and mages) cannot use crossbows.

[Reverendratbastard]

...yes, but 1. We're talking about 2E, 2. We're talking about pure-class clerics or mages. That's the topic; why second edition clerics (and mages) cannot use crossbows.

just like those in 1E couldn't, and which was explained in both eds, though of course not as much in BG docs... there was nothing exceptional about 2E's "silliness" (not your accusation, i know) - in fact, the FR Adventures and Legends & Lore books did well with making Specialist Priests very distinct from the run-of-the mill Cleric.

Gandalf ? Elrond ?

AD&D material??

Ouh, and Elminster is a Fighter -> Rogue -> Cleric -> Mage.

Ed Greenwood's Mary Sue? that proves nothing at all, other than "you can tweak the game for your favorite characters", which we all already knew... considering where we are and why these sites exist (and of course it's all completely above-board as of 3E)

And her Dex is 17, giving her the +3 damage and Thac0 bonus.

damage bonus from Dex is another error.

A decent crossbow has an almightly up-kick when you pull the trigger,

and how many 'not-decent' crossbows did you try?

[Jarno Mikkola]

...yes, but 1. We're talking about 2E, 2. We're talking about pure-class clerics or mages. That's the topic; why second edition clerics (and mages) cannot use crossbows.

Actually the original poster was wrong and you cannot use the Crossbow in the BG1.... so we are talking about modifying the 2E ruleset to include this ...

Gandalf ? Elrond ?

AD&D material??

Well, those are different mages from different worlds... as in, if we insist making one ruleset that covers all, why not take examples from different worlds.

Ouh, and Elminster is a Fighter -> Rogue -> Cleric -> Mage.

Ed Greenwood's Mary Sue? that proves nothing at all

Actually it proves that a magic user from this realm can be more than just a mage and still NOT use bows. Mary Sue... well every character has those characteristics, but if you read the story(the books) you know the reasons how he became all those... it was the social structure that he moved from one to another.

And her Dex is 17, giving her the +3 damage and Thac0 bonus.

damage bonus from Dex is another error.

Ouh, so hand-eye coordination has nothing to do with the damage you can inflict with a crossbow... after all the bolt goes through shields and all that. The eye in the head isn't the best place to HIT the target, any finger/toe will do...

Edited by Jarno Mikkola, 29 November 2011 - 12:26 AM.

[Wintershade]

Erghm, have you seen/heard of very many mages using long bows ? Gandalf ? Elrond ?

Just because you haven't seen many of them doesn't mean there are none. Most people have never seen air, yet they know it exists. And nobody has ever seen or heard any deity IRL, yet most people are convinced that there is at least one.

Voltando a vaca fria, what I'm trying to point out that even if there are not many pureclass mages using longbows or greatswords, it shouldn't be inherently prohibited for them (as it is in AD&D 2e). It's called a roleplaying game for a reason, and if everyone plays stereotypically within rather restrictive boundaries... well, a lot of fun gets lost. That's one of the reasons why I find less-restrictive rulesets, such as GURPS, Pathfinder, or Storyteller, much more appealing.

[Jarno Mikkola]

Most people have never seen air, yet they know it exists.

But I bet they have felt it, moving along their skin on a windy day. Say you do believe in nuclear bombs... but I bet most haven't been in one's explosion zone, and they still believe in it.

And nobody has ever seen or heard any deity ...

That's a lie... if people have seen a deity, they supposedly talk to one another about it... and that's what the religions are about, talk about *non sense*.
*To me.

[Choo Choo]

...yes, but 1. We're talking about 2E, 2. We're talking about pure-class clerics or mages. That's the topic; why second edition clerics (and mages) cannot use crossbows.

Actually the original poster was wrong and you cannot use the Crossbow in the BG1.... so we are talking about modifying the 2E ruleset to include this ...

Modifying? No one's talked about modifying anything. We're all clear on the fact that 2E pure-class mages and clerics can't use crossbows; the question is why, since using crossbows is easily learned.

Oh, Jarno and Wintershade, please don't talk about religion. Religion and politics are the most surefire ways to turn a discussion into a flamewar. Thank you!

[Reverendratbastard]

.... so we are talking about modifying the 2E ruleset to include this ...

actually, *you're* talking about whatever sheds your prior missteps. never mind, then. but please don't speak for 'us'.

... as in, if we insist making one ruleset that covers all,

and who exactly is insisting such a thing?

Mary Sue

apologies to Mr. Greenwood - the equivalent 'Gary Stu' was adopted while i wasn't looking.

Ouh, so hand-eye coordination has nothing to do with the damage you can inflict with a crossbow... after all the bolt goes through shields and all that. The eye in the head isn't the best place to HIT the target, any finger/toe will do...

sadly true, in a system which doesn't incorporate targeting (lol... what are hit points again?) - it was nice of Dragon magazine to pick up that slack way back when
which is one of the reasons mods exist... NOT how the actual mechanics of the original game worked. please comprehend that i'm not arguing about realism (which is what *some* mods are for - at least ostensibly); i'm pointing out the PnP concepts/mechanics that a CRPG was based on in the first place. (even though for years the adaptation failed to function as intended on many levels - which, again, is one of many reasons ~we~ have ended up in these forums. it's just that conflating one person's poor memory with another's oversight is worth avoiding if at all possible...)

Never Whistle While You're Pissing

[Reverendratbastard]

Religion and politics are the most surefire ways to turn a discussion into a flamewar. Thank you!

a fair stab, although both can be rather delightful (or at least interesting) topics amongst the well-informed and [not over]sensitive. 999 out of 1,000 instances, of course - and a conservative estimate, at that - don't qualify, of course