49 replies to this topic

[Schatten]

By that logic, a mage should be unable to cast spells naked, either. It's not that they need robes--it's that they can't cast in armor.

there is a slight difference between a requirement and an enhancment.

This is an inappropriate personality limitation. It would annoy me if I was told, "Your character MUST be an intellectual snob" without a reason. What, holding melee weapons in contempt is a requirement to make magic work? No...it's not, or it wouldn't be possible for a wizard to dual-class or be multiclassed

if you come from your academy you are somewhat proud of your work because not everyone become a magician and it is somewhat mysteries. you are more intelligent then john doe there. you are like one from the psi chor in bab5. a mage should cast spells and very rarely go melee. except battlemages who go to academies that train body and spirit.

[Kish]

if you come from your academy you are somewhat proud of your work because not everyone become a magician and it is somewhat mysteries. you are more intelligent then john doe there.

Still inappropriate character limitations. There is no reason a (Tabletop--obviously your background is fixed in BG) player shouldn't be allowed to play a wizard who feels hopelessly inferior to warriors and, every day, resents the fact that his father insisted he learn magic instead of training with a sword.

The only personality traits that have any business being required for a mage are the ones necessary to make magic work. "A wizard must be above-average intelligence" and "a sorcerer must be above-average charisma" are appropriate because they can't work magic without those attributes, but "a mage must look down on swordfighting" is not.

[Schatten]

to end it here (too off-topic): you can play your mage the way you want. sure you can be a mage who goes melee and whacks everything. if this is the way you want to play him.
my mages are the way i described them. proud to be a mage. a sword? i have no use for it. i have my magic.
i think its okay that a mage cannot wear armor and weapons.

[Sillara]

Please do not give the kensai any robes. Add special monk robes if you like, but part of the balancing element of the kensai is that they are forbidden to wear ANYTHING in that slot. They are otherwise too powerful. Please. I appeal to your sense of balance, TGM.

Sillara

P.S. And PLEASE leave the mage robes/rogue robes for them! If a monk or kensai so desperately wants protection, give the kensai a ring and the monk some bracers (or make monk robes).

[Pixel Kaiser]

I was pretty close to chosing the "leave them as they are" option...but I guess giving them to monks would be fine. But to allow kensais to wear them would be to give in! Kensais don't wear armor! That's just what they do! People are always raving about kensais, and this is exactly what I would expect to happen. It would be an atrosity that I will not stand for!

*cough cough*...erm...well, now that I've got that out of my system...

[Littiz]

Accept total defeat, TGM....

[T.G.Maestro]

Accept total defeat, TGM....

Never! You won't take me alive!!!
But jokes aside, I've heard what I want. The community has spoken, while some of us (including me) seem to accept a bit more freedom in wearing armors/robes etc, the majority likes the unwritten rules of 2nd E.
Still, I'd like you to take a look at IWD2, where most class has a much greater freedom in items than in BG2. Does it unbalance the game? Hardly, because of the downsides. I would like to point out that a mage CAN wear an armor, and no rule should change that (hey, that studded leather just won't jump off his body, right..?). On the other side, he must face the dire consequences if he decides to do so. While in armor, most of his magic will be useless, and many of his other abilities will be weakened as well. The same goes for other classes.
With this (experimental) component, I wanted to offer this "greater freedom", but with heavy limitations and balance.

The component will be in v1, and will allow mages and monks to wear the above mentioned robes, but no other class/kit would be able to do it. The component will be optional, and will remain only until v2, where it will be replaced by something else that will give unique monk robes to the game.

[MagusWizardo]

I think that a "best of both worlds" situation would be the most appropriate: make the lesser robes (Knave's, Adventurer's, etc. Maybe Fire Resistance) universal - ASWELL AS making a specialised Monk Robe which is inline with the Robe of Vecna. It doesn't make much sense that robes which don't enhance spellcasting can't be worn by non-Mages... especially not if we're given evidence that Monks can wear robes.

On Mages in armour, I like the idea of them being able to wear it, but not be able to cast spells.

Edited by MagusWizardo, 07 February 2004 - 06:00 PM.

[CamDawg]

As long as it's a separate component, I'm completely in favor in including it.

[Echon]

Another vote for 'mages only'.

-Echon

[T.G.Maestro]

I think that a "best of both worlds" situation would be the most appropriate: make the lesser robes (Knave's, Adventurer's, etc. Maybe Fire Resistance) universal - ASWELL AS making a specialised Monk Robe which is inline with the Robe of Vecna. It doesn't make much sense that robes which don't enhance spellcasting can't be worn by non-Mages... especially not if we're given evidence that Monks can wear robes.

On Mages in armour, I like the idea of them being able to wear it, but not be able to cast spells.

My words exactly MagusWizardo. With the sole exception of monk robes as powerful as the Robe of Vecna. Monks are strong already, no need to give them major bonuses. Some class specific positive effects would be nice however.

As long as it's a separate component, I'm completely in favor in including it

We have an agreement then.

[Littiz]

hmmm.
If you plan to remove it later, leaving it as a placeholder, then we should add placeholders for all future components...
You don't really admit defeat TGM, do you

[T.G.Maestro]

You don't really admit defeat TGM, do you

As long as there are others who like my ideas: no.

[T.G.Maestro]

As a final(?) decision, I've changed these lesser robes to mages/monks only. Monks are the only class who SHOULD be able to wear robes, and wouldn't benefit greatly from their bonuses. Again this is mainly a customizing issue.
To be hones, my heart bleeds that there are no robe-animations for this class ...

[Echon]

Monks are the only class who SHOULD be able to wear robes

Why?

-Echon

[T.G.Maestro]

Sorry, I wasn't too clear in my last post.
Normally monks tend to wear robes, even in the D&D realms. Simply take a look at IWD2, there are several monks wearing robes (they use the "sage" avatar, the same one priests of Oghma are using).

[CamDawg]

Yes, as IWD2 uses 3e. This is Refinements, not IceWindGate.

[T.G.Maestro]

Yes, as IWD2 uses 3e. This is Refinements, not IceWindGate.

I'm well aware that this is Refinements Cam . But this won't exclude the possibility to use something that works much better in 3E. We aren't talking about any TCs, but "stealing" better options and methods can be beneficial.

[CamDawg]

My issue is not with the component or the 3e ruleset, just that you're trying to justify it as a needed and/or SHOULD BE rule change for BG2. Just say you like it because it makes more sense to you and we'll all be happy.

We're implementing some 3e-ish features (domain spells) in a Cleric Remix mod that's in development for similar reasons.

[Littiz]

We aren't talking about any TCs, but "stealing" better options and methods can be beneficial.

...or lead to a great mess, mixing different game systems.
Of course I can live with a couple of such (optional) components, but I hope Refinements won't prosecute excessively on this path, frankly: something like the revision of Elemental Princes, that should be a better option.

Or at most, new kits. They might go a little out of the rules, surely, but you can pretend your character is that very UNIQUE Child of Bhaal with peculiar and inimitable characteristics, and what you do with your kit doesn't change the rules for the "rest of the world".
I say from IWD2 we should "steal" only visuals (uh, what about sounds?)

To be hones, my heart bleeds that there are no robe-animations for this class...

ehm, didn't you say you wanted this component as it makes monks look better?