Axe wielding cleric?
Rumor
I've played through BG2 a few times as a pure class PC and am
intrigued by the idea of a Berserker / Cleric for my next game. Having
never dual classed before, I have a couple questions.
I love playing the axe fighter, but I know clerics can't use axes.
Could a dual class cleric / fighter-of-your-choice use axes? How does
one go about creating such a character and at what point in BG2 do you
dual him over to the other? Or do you have to multiclass to be able to
use axes?
Just curious.
david
weapons list. (I have never tried taking cleric as my first profession and
then dualing to something else tho)
Dave
"Rumor" <scand...@whisperings.com> wrote in message
news:fhdqst0urkp36sodh...@4ax.com...
heather-jo cusack
"david" <david....@ntli.net> wrote in message
news:ECbz7.10928$T05.1...@news2-win.server.ntlworld.com...
> Generally when you dual/multi with clerics you are restricted to the
clerics
> weapons list. (I have never tried taking cleric as my first profession and
> then dualing to something else tho)
>
I started a game as a druid, dualed to fighter with pips in long swords.
When I regained my druid status, I couldn't use swords. Or cast spells.
To quote Xan, "BAH!"
Let me know how you go!
Liam
---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.274 / Virus Database: 144 - Release Date: 23/08/01
Ragnar
ALL Cleric dual- and multi-class combinations are limited to Clerical
weapons. If your fighter picks axes, he will be wasting his time.
BabyBrain
You can only use Cleric weapons I'm afraid. Still, ever resourceful as I am
you can get round this problem with a little bit of tweaking. You could
download the Infinity Engine Editor Pro from teambg.com, find the item file
for your favourite axe and simply change it so that clerics can wield it.
Maybe change the proficiency to mace or use shadowkeeper to give yourself
proficiency in axes. I did this to allow my cleric to hold a dagger and
give my sorcereress a halberd. Its hardly cheating really is it, just
bending the rules a little.
Agamemnon
>You can only use Cleric weapons I'm afraid. Still, ever resourceful as
>I am you can get round this problem with a little bit of tweaking. You
>could download the Infinity Engine Editor Pro from teambg.com, find the
>item file for your favourite axe and simply change it so that clerics
>can wield it. Maybe change the proficiency to mace or use shadowkeeper
>to give yourself proficiency in axes. I did this to allow my cleric to
>hold a dagger and give my sorcereress a halberd. Its hardly cheating
>really is it, just bending the rules a little.
>
"Hardly cheating?" To me, and to many at TeamBG for that matter, that
little trcik would equal CLUAing in a KILLSW01. :-) The cleric's weapon
restrictions are placed by his/her/its god, unlike those of the wizard,
which can be ludicrous at times. I would not call changing them anything
but cheating. Still, you bought the game and are free to do as you wish.
-Agamemnon-
BabyBrain
news:9qk5ns$hl7$1...@news1.song.fi...
I think someone mentioned that those restrictions for Clerics had been
removed anyway in the latest edition (though admittedly I dont really know
about the official rules).
But anyway you havent made any valid point other than that perhaps some gods
dont like certain weapons, which is fine but in BG you're not told your
cleric has to follow a certain faith (unless you choose one of the kits) so
if someone wants to make a character who is a cleric and wields a +3 axe
then theres no valid reason why they shouldnt. Even gods can make
concessions sometimes. You might want to them to explain it in the
characters history so that you can find it satisfactory, but so long as they
dont use the opportunity to make a +12 axe that does 500 points of fire
damage than I cant see that its cheating.
Weapon restrictions for other classes are on the whole completely
ridiculous. For example I can accept that mages dont wear armor for a
number of reasons but I cant see that theres any physical or even mystic
force thats stopping them from picking up a spear or a bow.
To me its just a matter of roleplay, if you want a mage who uses a spear
than damn well have a mage who uses a spear. For gods sake, why ever not?
I cant see that the balance of the game is really affected in any way just
because a character has a weapon that the rules wouldnt normally allow.
Rumor
<snip>
>"Hardly cheating?" To me, and to many at TeamBG for that matter, that
>little trcik would equal CLUAing in a KILLSW01. :-) The cleric's weapon
>restrictions are placed by his/her/its god, unlike those of the wizard,
>which can be ludicrous at times. I would not call changing them anything
>but cheating. Still, you bought the game and are free to do as you wish.
I guess my sticking point is the "one-size-fits-all-theologies" idea
that *all* the gods of all the pantheons would have identical weapon
restrictions. While one god might have restrictions due to the sacred
nature of blood in their particular theology, another may revel in the
shedding of blood as a means of slapping the first god in the face. I
think the innumerable ancient religious cults demonstrated the
capricious and divisive nature of those godlets more than it shows
their unity.
At any rate, the character I am resurrecting for this run through is a
P&P character from the early 80's college days. He was an axe-wielding
barbarian warrior from the north who was called by his god to use his
battlefield prowess to stomp out the pagan ideologies of the ice
trolls. As part of his mission, he was given a +2 battle axe that did
fire damage. Since I was the DM at least half the time during our
weekend long games, I made the exception based on an ancient
theological studies class I was taking. Once that mission was
complete, he was allowed to continue in the service of his god as a
warrior in defense of righteousness.
Jesse Yeager
Unfortunately, as others have noted, you can only use bludgeoning weapons (I
stopped using the term 'blunt weapons' after too many role-playing sessions
with potheads). However, if you are not opposed to the many game-expanding
uses of shadowkeeper, then an easy way to remedy this problem is to give
your character the correct amount of axe proficiency slots and the "use any
item" ability.
Adam Duguid
At the beginning of time, magic-users were prohibited by the gods from
carrying any type of weapon or wearing any sort of armour. The reason being,
ostensibly, that they needed to devote time to study that could not be spent
achieving proficiency in the art of weaponry. But, after the magic-users had
helped Huma defeat the Queen of Darkness by creating the magical dragon
orbs, the gods granted them the right to carry daggers upon their persons -
in memory of Huma's lance.
Lets see how many people spot straight away the book being read :-).
Point is that though this isn't the world being used by BG they are very
similar. I can't think of many worlds that I have visited in games or books
that have mages running around with longswords or clerics wielding halberds.
Why is it so hard to believe that they have restrictions placed upon them by
the higher beings that dish out their other skills?
Last point. Your cleric has to pick an alignment at which point they have
just restricted who their faith is directed to. How many good clerics out
there are worship Talos? If you doubt me try making a cleric of each kit. A
cleric of each kit can only be of certain alignments and in this case if a=b
then b=a.
Lernuan
"BabyBrain" <baby...@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
news:1ohz7.9696$nT1.1...@news6-win.server.ntlworld.com...
Westley Weimer
> <Extract from a book being currently read>
> At the beginning of time, magic-users were prohibited by the gods from
> carrying any type of weapon or wearing any sort of armour. The reason being,
> ostensibly, that they needed to devote time to study that could not be spent
> achieving proficiency in the art of weaponry. But, after the magic-users had
Ah, Weis and Hickman, thy legacy eternal.
> Point is that though this isn't the world being used by BG they are very
> similar. I can't think of many worlds that I have visited in games or
> books that have mages running around with longswords or clerics wielding
> halberds.
Have you ever seen Ladyhawk? If not, go watch it now. Matthew Broderick
plus that handsome brooding guy. Anyway, the important bit is that the
arch evil cursing cleric notably uses a halberd.
> Why is it so hard to believe that they have restrictions placed upon them
> by the higher beings that dish out their other skills?
It's hard to believe that the *same blanket restriction holds for all
clerics*. I might imagine an elven god restricting followers to wooden
weapons, a dwarven god restricting followers to metal weapons, a healing
god restricting followers to non-truly-violent means (lassos, boloas,
etc.). But *every single god* restricts followers from drawing blood? Come
on, does this really fit with the evil deities? Shar? Lolth? To steal a
line from someone else is this NG, I bet all of those evil cult priests are
annoyed that they cannot sacrifice maidens on altars because they *cannot
use sacrificial daggers*.
In the lovely world of Paksenarion (if you haven't read it, grab it now:
_The Deed of Paksenarrion_ by Elizabeth moon), priests of Lariat (sp,
anyone remember what that god's name really is?) the god of torture
specifically use evil barbed poisoned blood-drawing weapons.
Examples of non-blunt-obsessed clerics abound. You actually have to look
pretty hard to find that Europen Bishop that's the nominal historical
justification for it. The real reason was more like "we need to make
clerics different from (and slightly weaker than) fighters in combat and
we are imaginative but not consistent".
- Wes
Adam Duguid
Comments amongst your fine prose.
"Westley Weimer" <wei...@argus.EECS.Berkeley.EDU> wrote in message
news:9qncjc$26tk$1...@agate.berkeley.edu...
> Adam Duguid <ajdu...@spamsucks.ajduguid.free-online.co.uk> wrote:
> > <Extract from a book being currently read>
> > At the beginning of time, magic-users were prohibited by the gods from
> > carrying any type of weapon or wearing any sort of armour. The reason
being,
> > ostensibly, that they needed to devote time to study that could not be
spent
> > achieving proficiency in the art of weaponry. But, after the magic-users
had
> > Lets see how many people spot straight away the book being read :-).
>
> Ah, Weis and Hickman, thy legacy eternal.
And a damn fine read as well. Still haven't found another series which has
captivated as much. If you have any suggestions I am more than willing to
listen (can always use a good book to read)
>
> > Point is that though this isn't the world being used by BG they are very
> > similar. I can't think of many worlds that I have visited in games or
> > books that have mages running around with longswords or clerics wielding
> > halberds.
>
> Have you ever seen Ladyhawk? If not, go watch it now. Matthew Broderick
> plus that handsome brooding guy. Anyway, the important bit is that the
> arch evil cursing cleric notably uses a halberd.
I must say I haven't even heard of Ladyhawk, not that helps in making my
last comment look any less silly. Is it any good? Is the cursing from the
cleric because his god keeps telling to put the halberd down or he's getting
his ass kicked? :-)
>
> > Why is it so hard to believe that they have restrictions placed upon
them
> > by the higher beings that dish out their other skills?
>
> It's hard to believe that the *same blanket restriction holds for all
> clerics*. I might imagine an elven god restricting followers to wooden
> weapons, a dwarven god restricting followers to metal weapons, a healing
> god restricting followers to non-truly-violent means (lassos, boloas,
> etc.). But *every single god* restricts followers from drawing blood?
Come
> on, does this really fit with the evil deities? Shar? Lolth? To steal a
> line from someone else is this NG, I bet all of those evil cult priests
are
> annoyed that they cannot sacrifice maidens on altars because they *cannot
> use sacrificial daggers*.
The dagger thing is a very good point. Though only a slight alteration to
the rules could allow daggers for ceremonies. The rest of it I really don't
have a problem with. In the world of Krynn there are the three major gods
depicting the alignments good, neutral and evil and these are the ones that
most clerics follow (I say most as there are a couple of lesser gods -
possibly under each one - that have followers. eg Mishkal(?) which is the
goddess of healing if I remember correctly). Anyway if the major gods made
the decision than who is to argue? (not the lesser gods and certainly not
mere mortals) That as well as the fact that if your dead are you worried
that it was a cissy mace that caved your head in and not death by a sword?
Again, in the Krynn world it was the gods of magic that placed the
restrictions onto the mages. Not that you were arguing that point but they
are all wrapped up together.
>
> In the lovely world of Paksenarion (if you haven't read it, grab it now:
> _The Deed of Paksenarrion_ by Elizabeth moon), priests of Lariat (sp,
> anyone remember what that god's name really is?) the god of torture
> specifically use evil barbed poisoned blood-drawing weapons.
>
Thanks for the tip
> Examples of non-blunt-obsessed clerics abound. You actually have to look
> pretty hard to find that Europen Bishop that's the nominal historical
> justification for it. The real reason was more like "we need to make
> clerics different from (and slightly weaker than) fighters in combat and
> we are imaginative but not consistent".
In fairness they are meant to go around doing their daily duties (praying,
looking upwards and whatever else they do) and are not meant to be front
shock troops. The knights with their honour and faith are for that and it's
a choice they made right at the start. That's why I can't figure out the
point of a fighter/cleric (it's a paladin with some differences really).
>
> - Wes
Darryl Riser
news:2ZGz7.77$ur6.5490@wards:
> In fairness they are meant to go around doing their daily duties
> (praying, looking upwards and whatever else they do) and are not meant
> to be front shock troops. The knights with their honour and faith are
> for that and it's a choice they made right at the start. That's why I
> can't figure out the point of a fighter/cleric (it's a paladin with
> some differences really).
That difference I get. A Paladin chooses to train more with weapons than
with spells. So he can use swords, halberds, axes, etc., but can't cast
higher than fourth-level spells. Fighter clerics, spend more time on spells
so they are more limited when it comes to weapons.
The rule I've always had a problem with is weapons proficiencies. I've never
understood why my fighter/thief or paladin is able to specialize in three
weapons but can't master one. In real life, I'd devote myself to mastering
the one weapon I prefer to carry rather than trying to become mediocre with
three or four I never carry.
Even if you use the argument that as a soldier, I *have* to train with
certain weapons, I should still be allowed to train with my favorite in my
free time. (Maybe say that only every other pip can be placed in Mastery or
above for Paladins, fighter/thieves, etc.)
I hate it when my high-level bard has to train with a weapon he'll never use
just because he's already used up all the slots for weapons he actually
likes. Or my sorceror has to become proficient in darts and slings in spite
of having a perfectly lovely +3 throwing dagger.
But BG does make room for role-play. Mazzy, for example, can use lay on
hands in spite of being a halfling fighter. Why? Because the guy who created
her, wanted her to. If you want your sorceror to put all his pips into
dagger instead of spreading them out over weapons he won't use, do it. If
you want your cleric to be able to use an axe, go for it. Maybe use the
restriction that because he can use an axe, he can't use blunt weapons.
The important thing is to enjoy the game. One of the things I like about
IEEP is that you can use it to change cosmetics of a game. If your Druid has
a killer club but you really wanted her to use spears, change the club into
a spear. Leaving the stats alone just changes the the way it looks on the
paperdoll and in the game. You haven't changed gameplay or balance at all.
But you're a much happier player. Change the Mace of Disruption into an axe.
Leave all the stats alone and just change the look. You essentially have a
mace that looks like an axe in the game.)
Darryl
=================================================
"Only sweet-voiced birds are imprisoned.
Owls are not kept in cages."
=================================================
The Drakhan's Lair: http://drakhan.com
BabyBrain
> <Extract from a book being currently read>
>
> At the beginning of time, magic-users were prohibited by the gods from
> carrying any type of weapon or wearing any sort of armour. The reason
being,
> ostensibly, that they needed to devote time to study that could not be
spent
> achieving proficiency in the art of weaponry. But, after the magic-users
had
> helped Huma defeat the Queen of Darkness by creating the magical dragon
> orbs, the gods granted them the right to carry daggers upon their
persons -
> in memory of Huma's lance.
>
> Lets see how many people spot straight away the book being read :-).
>
> Point is that though this isn't the world being used by BG they are very
> similar. I can't think of many worlds that I have visited in games or
books
> that have mages running around with longswords or clerics wielding
halberds.
> Why is it so hard to believe that they have restrictions placed upon them
by
> the higher beings that dish out their other skills?
Because basically why would they do that? Eh, Why? And what exactly will
they do if a cleric does use an axe? Give him a good long smiting? I
honestly dont think the gods really care a great deal on this issue, so long
as the cleric gets his job done then what does a small thing like this
matter. And it's just back to the point again that if someone invents a
character who uses a weapon that the rules wouldnt allow then they can as
far as I'm concerned. Seems like there are plenty of characters already in
the game as it is who have twisted the rules in in at least similar or
sometimes far worse ways.
And its not unbalancing the game at all, face it there are plenty of maces,
hammers and flails in the game that are just as powerful as any axe.
> Last point. Your cleric has to pick an alignment at which point they have
> just restricted who their faith is directed to. How many good clerics out
> there are worship Talos? If you doubt me try making a cleric of each kit.
A
> cleric of each kit can only be of certain alignments and in this case if
a=b
> then b=a.
Not even gods of the same alignment seem to agree on a great many things,
its hardly likely they'll all agree on this. Really, they bicker and
squabble like parliamentary politicians sometimes.
Billy Yank
news:3kIz7.7471$sF.8...@news2-win.server.ntlworld.com:
> maces, hammers and flails in the game that are just as powerful as any
> axe.
>
When I DM'd PnP games, I _required_ clerics to use the weapon most
associated with their god. Clerics of Frey ran around with two-handed
swords, carefully painted with blue enamel. B{D
--
Billy Yank
"...we can determine and know what manner of men we will be whenever and
wherever the hour strikes, that calls to noble action."
- Brig. Gen. Joshua L. Chamberlain
Jesse Yeager
> similar. I can't think of many worlds that I have visited in games or
books
> that have mages running around with longswords or clerics wielding
halberds.
> Why is it so hard to believe that they have restrictions placed upon them
by
> the higher beings that dish out their other skills?
There are two notable examples to the contrary, and they are, in my opinion,
the greatest predecessors of fantasy role playing. First, Gandalf, in the
Lord of the Rings, used Orcrist, an elven longsword, almost exclusively.
Secondly, Merlin was given Excalibur and wielded it in many battles before
Uther even came around, let alone Arthur.
> Last point. Your cleric has to pick an alignment at which point they have
> just restricted who their faith is directed to. How many good clerics out
> there are worship Talos? If you doubt me try making a cleric of each kit.
A
> cleric of each kit can only be of certain alignments and in this case if
a=b
> then b=a.
Granted, this is not the case in the BG series, but in AD&D 2e, there is a
distinction made between a cleric and a priest of a specific mythos. Most
priests are devoted to a power, but these priests are hard to role play in
an adventuring party. The more common PC is a cleric, who can still worship
any deity, but has standard restrictions (bludgeoning weapons and standard
spell access). BG2 seems to be true to form, however, in not setting
specific spell access and weapon restrictions for the specific mythoi in the
game. It seems to be drawing more from 3e, in which the priest of a
specific mythos ceases to exist and the druid is a character class all its
own, instead of an example of a specific priesthood.
Michael Schneider
<wei...@argus.EECS.Berkeley.EDU> wrote:
> Have you ever seen Ladyhawk? If not, go watch it now. Matthew Broderick
> plus that handsome brooding guy.
Rutger Huer. Great film.
--
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/American_Liberty/files/al.htm
Reply to mike1@@@usfamily.net sans two @@, or your reply won't reach me.
Rumor
>The rule I've always had a problem with is weapons proficiencies. I've never
>understood why my fighter/thief or paladin is able to specialize in three
>weapons but can't master one. In real life, I'd devote myself to mastering
>the one weapon I prefer to carry rather than trying to become mediocre with
>three or four I never carry.
Agreed. If you are going to restrict me to weapon x, allow that I will
become adept in it after using it for so many years.
>But BG does make room for role-play. Mazzy, for example, can use lay on
>hands in spite of being a halfling fighter. Why? Because the guy who created
>her, wanted her to. If you want your sorceror to put all his pips into
>dagger instead of spreading them out over weapons he won't use, do it. If
>you want your cleric to be able to use an axe, go for it. Maybe use the
>restriction that because he can use an axe, he can't use blunt weapons.
Exactly. If I cannot role-play, then I may as well use a canned
character named "cleric" or "fighter" and never get inside their heads
or tell the story of their past. But if you are going to allow me to
make a biography, allow me to give the PC a bit of history and
personality, then allow me to give him that history the way I wish.
>The important thing is to enjoy the game. One of the things I like about
>IEEP is that you can use it to change cosmetics of a game. If your Druid has
>a killer club but you really wanted her to use spears, change the club into
>a spear. Leaving the stats alone just changes the the way it looks on the
>paperdoll and in the game. You haven't changed gameplay or balance at all.
>But you're a much happier player. Change the Mace of Disruption into an axe.
>Leave all the stats alone and just change the look. You essentially have a
>mace that looks like an axe in the game.)
Agreed again. Sure some are going to use IEEP and Shadowkeeper to
create godlike characters who can waltz through the game, but I think
they miss out on the role playing aspect, turning the game into little
more than an action arcade of flying gibs.
I tweaked the in-game axes so that my PC (a berserker cleric) can use
them and am happily off to find Azuredge which IIRC is quite a nice
weapon against those nasty undead guys.
Darryl Riser
news:7990ttg43v4anp6oq...@4ax.com:
> Exactly. If I cannot role-play, then I may as well use a canned
> character named "cleric" or "fighter" and never get inside their heads
> or tell the story of their past. But if you are going to allow me to
> make a biography, allow me to give the PC a bit of history and
> personality, then allow me to give him that history the way I wish.
You tend to have a lot more leeway with pen and paper games because the
rules aren't hardwired (and the DM has the ability to tailor challenges to
deal with your customizations). It's difficult to allow for that in a CRPG.
Although Shadowkeeper and IEEP seem to offer the opportunity when used in
moderation.
> Agreed again. Sure some are going to use IEEP and Shadowkeeper to
> create godlike characters who can waltz through the game, but I think
> they miss out on the role playing aspect, turning the game into little
> more than an action arcade of flying gibs.
Yeah, it's hard not to give yourself 18s in everything in spite of the fact
that weak stats are where most of the role-playing comes from with AD&D
characters. Raistlin, for example, wouldn't have been the same with 18s in
con and strength.
I've only just started playing with IEEP. The main reason I got it was to
try developing a solo dagger. My idea was to create an item that could
detect traps and open chests so that I could finally solo a game without
having to use a thief-type. It is sooo tempting to make it a vorpal dagger
that completely heals the character each time he hits an opponent. :>
It's really frightening how one good item can break the game.
Westley Weimer
> Comments amongst your fine prose.
You are too kind.
> And a damn fine read as well. Still haven't found another series which has
> captivated as much. If you have any suggestions I am more than willing to
> listen (can always use a good book to read)
These are all very good fantasy novels:
George R. R. Martin's Game of Thrones series. This is exceptionally good.
Tad Williams' Memory, Sorrow and Thorn.
Elizabeth Moon's Deed of Paksenarrion.
If you like your worlds a bit darker, consider Stephen R. Donaldson's
Thomas Covenant books. They're actually quite good if the writing style
doesn't immediately turn you off.
While I'm sure someone on agbg2 will disagree, you can skip anything by
Robert Jordan or David Eddings without loss. Trust me.
If you still like W&H, their best (most mature, say) work is the Death Gate
Cycle (although the first book is boring).
> I must say I haven't even heard of Ladyhawk, not that helps in making my
> last comment look any less silly. Is it any good?
Yes.
> Is the cursing from the cleric because his god keeps telling to put the
> halberd down or he's getting his ass kicked? :-)
:-) Loosely, the Cleric fell in love with a beautiful lady, but she did not
love him. He cursed her and her lover so that they would be more or less
forever apart. Watch the movie, it's great!
> The rest of it I really don't have a problem with. In the world of Krynn
> there are the three major gods
OK, if it *just so happens* that there are only 3 gods and *all of them*
happen to hate drawing blood, then it it makes sense that clerics will
bludgeon you to death.
However, that's notably *not the case* in Faerun / the Forgotten Realms
setting, which is where BG takes place.
> most clerics follow (I say most as there are a couple of lesser gods -
> possibly under each one - that have followers. eg Mishkal(?) which is the
Right, even in Krynn there are racial gods and minor gods, IIRC. For
example, Rennard (Rennart?) in the Legend/Deed of Huma prays to that god of
disease to "save" him when he has the plague. Even if you don't
double-count Raistlin and Takhisis, that's still more than one evil god.
They all oppose drawing blood? I think not.
Let me see if I can restructure this a bit more clearly: I can certainly
imagine a fantasy world in which the gods forbid their followers from
drawing blood. That world could be consistent. *However*, AD&D is not like
that. The "no blood" thing was purely a game balance thing and not a major
part of the backstory. It's not particularly consistent.
> goddess of healing if I remember correctly). Anyway if the major gods
> made the decision than who is to argue? (not the lesser gods and
> certainly not
Again, if *all* the gods in those worlds said "no bladed weapons", fine.
But that just doesn't seem to be supported by what you can read about these
worlds.
> In fairness they are meant to go around doing their daily duties (praying,
> looking upwards and whatever else they do) and are not meant to be front
> shock troops.
Actually, the AD&D cleric is modelled after a warrior priest (not unlike
the knights templar, say). The Cavalier (see Unearthed Arcana) and whatnot
are more standard "knights" -- jousting, nobles, squires, that sort of
thing.
> a choice they made right at the start. That's why I can't figure out the
> point of a fighter/cleric (it's a paladin with some differences really).
:-) AD&D is not the most consistent system.
- Wes
Marvael
<wei...@argus.EECS.Berkeley.EDU> wrote:
[snip]
>While I'm sure someone on agbg2 will disagree, you can skip anything by
>Robert Jordan or David Eddings without loss. Trust me.
Of course. There is always someone who disagrees. I don't know about
Robert Jordan, but I happen to quite like David Eddings. It is
fantasy, but not fantasy the way Tolkien writes about it. The books
are not GREAT, but they make a nice, casual read. If I just want to
read an entertaining, not too difficult novel/series, I'll take
Eddings over Tolkien. If I want to read something very detailed I'll
read Tolkien. The two writers are uncomparable, but I like them
both. (What do the guys/girls here in this NG think about Terry
Brooks; especially the Shannara series?)
>If you still like W&H, their best (most mature, say) work is the Death Gate
>Cycle (although the first book is boring).
>
>> I must say I haven't even heard of Ladyhawk, not that helps in making my
>> last comment look any less silly. Is it any good?
>
>Yes.
That movie is really great. I really liked it. Stop reading this NG
now and go see it, or you'll hate yourself forever if you don't. Has
anyone ever seen Dragonheart? Quite a nice fantasy-comedy.
It seems I'm an incurable romantic. My girlfriend says so. I don't
mean 'romantic' as eating dinner by candlelight, but more the in the
literary sense of the word: not being happy with the present,
escaping to the past or future. (Also known as Escapism in
literature.) That is why I like those things as Midieval movies,
books, fantasy stories and such; and even Star Trek.
Marvael
--
A C programmers' only certainty:
A computer never does what you intend it to do.
It always does what you tell it to do.
Marvael
<reje...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>> Point is that though this isn't the world being used by BG they are very
>> similar. I can't think of many worlds that I have visited in games or
>books
>> that have mages running around with longswords or clerics wielding
>halberds.
>> Why is it so hard to believe that they have restrictions placed upon them
>by
>> the higher beings that dish out their other skills?
>
>There are two notable examples to the contrary, and they are, in my opinion,
>the greatest predecessors of fantasy role playing. First, Gandalf, in the
>Lord of the Rings, used Orcrist, an elven longsword, almost exclusively.
He had the sword, but I can't remember him using it in battle. But
he indeed is a wizard, using a sword.
>Secondly, Merlin was given Excalibur and wielded it in many battles before
>Uther even came around, let alone Arthur.
And how on Earth could I have forgotten that?
[snip]
Adam Duguid
It took me a while to try and form a counter argument.
>OK, if it *just so happens* that there are only 3 gods and *all of them*
>happen to hate drawing blood, then it it makes sense that clerics will
>bludgeon you to death.
>
>However, that's notably *not the case* in Faerun / the Forgotten Realms
>setting, which is where BG takes place.
First I think I have to correct myself, though this is coming from memory.
Isn't there a tree like structure to the gods just as the Greeks seem to
have.
God who's name I can't remember (3rd book of orginal series methinks)
Under him/her/it are the classic good, neutral & evil
under them are gods for races and sub-areas such as healing and disease as
you mentioned.
This seems a bit like BG though their tree wasn't as neat
Ao (Overpower (lord) of the other gods)
everybody else
Not much of a tree but it was the manual that mentioned Ao as the god that
caused the age of troubles(?) where all gods except Helm walked as mortals
with Mystra the god of magic dividing herself so she would servive in
mortals (?). Ao is th highest of the gods here and I'm pretty sure there was
someone/thing similar for Krynn. In both cases then if this god decreed
something for the followers then it should be abided don't you think. (which
you do think as it turns out)
This argument/discussion then goes out the window when you say it was a game
balance thing. Then it comes down to a bad implementation if you ask me (boy
is that going to annoy somebody) which makes even less sense considering
there is no reason why a +6 mace can't exist. If they wanted it so fighters
still had an edge with weapons they should have changed the prof so more *
meant something. Then again the more I look at the magic system the more I
think there has to be a nicer system out there. Too many spells, some
duplicating themselves and some just are crap, then there's the whole saving
throw system....
> :-) AD&D is not the most consistent system.
And yet we still play.
NEXT PART VERY IMPORTANT!
Thanks for the book tips :-)
Adam
Adam Duguid
"Darryl Riser" <ri...@sat-co.net> wrote in message
news:Xns913EA3A256...@206.113.230.12...
> "Adam Duguid" <ajdu...@spamsucks.ajduguid.free-online.co.uk> wrote in
> news:2ZGz7.77$ur6.5490@wards:
>
> > In fairness they are meant to go around doing their daily duties
> > (praying, looking upwards and whatever else they do) and are not meant
> > to be front shock troops. The knights with their honour and faith are
> > for that and it's a choice they made right at the start. That's why I
> > can't figure out the point of a fighter/cleric (it's a paladin with
> > some differences really).
>
> That difference I get. A Paladin chooses to train more with weapons than
> with spells. So he can use swords, halberds, axes, etc., but can't cast
> higher than fourth-level spells. Fighter clerics, spend more time on
spells
> so they are more limited when it comes to weapons.
>
that in english terms a Paladin is a noble warrior who is in touch with a
deity and a fighter cleric is...pretty much the same. He is in touch with
his god but practices warfare. In the big scheme of things one could look
like the other.
> The rule I've always had a problem with is weapons proficiencies. I've
never
> understood why my fighter/thief or paladin is able to specialize in three
> weapons but can't master one. In real life, I'd devote myself to mastering
> the one weapon I prefer to carry rather than trying to become mediocre
with
> three or four I never carry.
>
> Even if you use the argument that as a soldier, I *have* to train with
> certain weapons, I should still be allowed to train with my favorite in my
> free time. (Maybe say that only every other pip can be placed in Mastery
or
> above for Paladins, fighter/thieves, etc.)
>
When it comes to Paladins I see your point. Right at the start of the game
you could select one weapon which could increase beyond the others. Makes
perfect sense to me. Even more so when you look at what a knight is in some
definations.
> I hate it when my high-level bard has to train with a weapon he'll never
use
> just because he's already used up all the slots for weapons he actually
> likes. Or my sorceror has to become proficient in darts and slings in
spite
> of having a perfectly lovely +3 throwing dagger.
>
Paladin yes, thief yes, bard really don't know, mage..no
Mages really are about spells and they really don't have the time to
practice weapon skills. They probably get too many additional weapon skills
as it is (by the end of TOB they should be skilled in any weapon the can
pick up)
Adam
Cap'n Twill
> <shakes his head>
>
> It took me a while to try and form a counter argument.
>
> >OK, if it *just so happens* that there are only 3 gods and *all of them*
> >happen to hate drawing blood, then it it makes sense that clerics will
> >bludgeon you to death.
> >
> >However, that's notably *not the case* in Faerun / the Forgotten Realms
> >setting, which is where BG takes place.
>
> First I think I have to correct myself, though this is coming from memory.
> Isn't there a tree like structure to the gods just as the Greeks seem to
> have.
>
> God who's name I can't remember (3rd book of orginal series methinks)
>
> Under him/her/it are the classic good, neutral & evil
>
> under them are gods for races and sub-areas such as healing and disease as
> you mentioned.
>
> This seems a bit like BG though their tree wasn't as neat
Well, it wasn't so much a "tree" as it was a "river feeding a lake," with the
High God at the top, and all others having been gathered/created/born below
him/her/it.
> Ao (Overpower (lord) of the other gods)
>
> everybody else
>
> Not much of a tree but it was the manual that mentioned Ao as the god that
> caused the age of troubles(?) where all gods except Helm walked as mortals
> with Mystra the god of magic dividing herself so she would servive in
> mortals (?). Ao is th highest of the gods here and I'm pretty sure there was
> someone/thing similar for Krynn. In both cases then if this god decreed
> something for the followers then it should be abided don't you think. (which
> you do think as it turns out)
According to my source material, after providing the initial spark, the High God
was apparently content to sit back, have a cold one, and let creation run its
course.
The other, lesser gods filled in the rest. I could go on for quite a bit about
which of the 21 gods did what, where, why, when and how, but I'll try to keep it
simple, and pertaining to the topic at hand.
Good:
Paladine, chief god of good, honored by the Knights of Solamnia (yes, *them*),
and general Kicker of Evil Ass. His followers are listed as being able to use
any weapon.
Mishakal, goddess of healing, Paladine's wife. Her priests can use non-piercing
weapons.
Majere, god of... um, stuff. I'm not really sure. His worshipers focus on
martial arts.
Kiri-Jolith, "Sword of Justice." That should pretty much sum up his position on
the matter.
& the rest.
Evil:
Takhisis, "Queen of Darkness," One Bad Mother. Her minions are allowed to use
whatever they want, be it sling, mace, two-handed sword, someone's leg (though
her chief priest/general of all her armies/Emperor of Ansalon used a mace +3.
Meh).
Morgion, lord of pestilence, foe of Mishakal, and a real drag at parties. Those
who do his work are restricted to use of saps and daggers, reflective of the
emphasis on capturing live victims for sacrifice and other festivities.
Chemosh, death and undeath. His posse can play with sickles.
etc.
Neutrality:
Gilean, former scholar turned high-ranking deity, film at nine. Followers use
staves, and probably books.
Reorx, the Forge, chief among dwarves. Not surprisingly, priests of Reorx can
wield hammers, axes, and beards.
Chislev, incarnation of nature. She's popular among the druid crowd (damn,
dirty hippies), so hers still get to use scimitars.
and so on.
And the three gods of magic have priests that are also mages, so they don't
really count.
Now, what was I getting at? Oh, yes, clerics can use all kinds of weapons in
the service of Krynnish gods, though there are restrictions between them.
> This argument/discussion then goes out the window when you say it was a game
> balance thing. Then it comes down to a bad implementation if you ask me (boy
> is that going to annoy somebody) which makes even less sense considering
> there is no reason why a +6 mace can't exist. If they wanted it so fighters
> still had an edge with weapons they should have changed the prof so more *
> meant something. Then again the more I look at the magic system the more I
> think there has to be a nicer system out there. Too many spells, some
> duplicating themselves and some just are crap, then there's the whole saving
> throw system....
> > :-) AD&D is not the most consistent system.
>
> And yet we still play.
I'll play devil's advocate (or something) and say, "because we can't or don't
have the time to come up with anything better."
Cap'n Twill
And I'm sure I provided more "information" than anyone could possibly have
wanted.
Hong Ooi
wrote:
>Unfortunately, as others have noted, you can only use bludgeoning weapons (I
>stopped using the term 'blunt weapons' after too many role-playing sessions
>with potheads). However, if you are not opposed to the many game-expanding
>uses of shadowkeeper, then an easy way to remedy this problem is to give
>your character the correct amount of axe proficiency slots and the "use any
>item" ability.
>
Roll on 3E....
--
Hong Ooi | "I'm ready to go to Hell, but the Jaheira
hong...@maths.anu.edu.au | romance seems to have stopped."
http://www.zip.com.au/~hong | -- MM
Canberra, Australia |
Kish
>
> Adam Duguid wrote:
> Well, it wasn't so much a "tree" as it was a "river feeding a lake," with the
> High God at the top, and all others having been gathered/created/born below
> him/her/it.
The High God idea, thankfully, got kicked out in the novels, in favor of
a being called Chaos. (Yes, I am aware not all the novels are official
Dragonlance. Yes, the one I'm thinking of is very official--Dragons of
Summer Flame.)
> Evil:
> Takhisis, "Queen of Darkness," One Bad Mother. Her minions are allowed to use
> whatever they want, be it sling, mace, two-handed sword, someone's leg (though
> her chief priest/general of all her armies/Emperor of Ansalon used a mace +3.
> Meh).
It's a case of having a mace equivalent to, say, the Flail of Ages.
Don't leave out the part about how Verminaard's mace struck people
blind.
--
Kish
ICQ# 28085879
AIM Kish K M
Cap'n Twill
> Cap'n Twill wrote:
> >
> > Adam Duguid wrote:
>
> > Well, it wasn't so much a "tree" as it was a "river feeding a lake," with the
> > High God at the top, and all others having been gathered/created/born below
> > him/her/it.
>
> The High God idea, thankfully, got kicked out in the novels, in favor of
> a being called Chaos. (Yes, I am aware not all the novels are official
> Dragonlance. Yes, the one I'm thinking of is very official--Dragons of
> Summer Flame.)
Yes, but Chaos was never an actual *god*, just the embodiment of whatever was there
before the universe was created. Frankly, I found it odd that the High God never
intervened *at all* during that time, even when the entirety of creation was
threatened.
I mean, this being of utter omnipotence was there at the beginning, and couldn't
have simply gone away.
Maybe my opinions are colored by the fact that I liked the old Krynn better.
> > Evil:
> > Takhisis, "Queen of Darkness," One Bad Mother. Her minions are allowed to use
> > whatever they want, be it sling, mace, two-handed sword, someone's leg (though
> > her chief priest/general of all her armies/Emperor of Ansalon used a mace +3.
> > Meh).
>
> It's a case of having a mace equivalent to, say, the Flail of Ages.
Actually, Ariakus' mace was referred to as just having an enchantment of +3, and not
any special powers.
> Don't leave out the part about how Verminaard's mace struck people
> blind.
I didn't include his weapon because it's still a mace, and not indicative of the
variety of weapons clerics could use.
Bah, I just realized that Baldur's Gate has poisoned my mind so that I view a weapon
from a world with almost universal distrust/non-use of magic as being "only" +3.
Cap'n Twill
I should probably mention that much of the specific details came from "Tales of the
Lance," and I know how everyone just loved that.
Kish
>
> Kish wrote:
>
> > Cap'n Twill wrote:
> > >
> > > Adam Duguid wrote:
> >
> > > Well, it wasn't so much a "tree" as it was a "river feeding a lake," with the
> > > High God at the top, and all others having been gathered/created/born below
> > > him/her/it.
> >
> > The High God idea, thankfully, got kicked out in the novels, in favor of
> > a being called Chaos. (Yes, I am aware not all the novels are official
> > Dragonlance. Yes, the one I'm thinking of is very official--Dragons of
> > Summer Flame.)
>
> Yes, but Chaos was never an actual *god*, just the embodiment of whatever was there
> before the universe was created. Frankly, I found it odd that the High God never
> intervened *at all* during that time, even when the entirety of creation was
> threatened.
The High God idea had been deleted. Chaos was "the Father of All and
Nothing," and the father of the gods. Difficult to intervene when your
existence has been retconned.
>
> I mean, this being of utter omnipotence was there at the beginning, and couldn't
> have simply gone away.
>
> Maybe my opinions are colored by the fact that I liked the old Krynn better.
Maybe so.
> > > Evil:
> > > Takhisis, "Queen of Darkness," One Bad Mother. Her minions are allowed to use
> > > whatever they want, be it sling, mace, two-handed sword, someone's leg (though
> > > her chief priest/general of all her armies/Emperor of Ansalon used a mace +3.
> > > Meh).
> >
> > It's a case of having a mace equivalent to, say, the Flail of Ages.
>
> Actually, Ariakus' mace was referred to as just having an enchantment of +3, and not
> any special powers.
>
> > Don't leave out the part about how Verminaard's mace struck people
> > blind.
>
> I didn't include his weapon because it's still a mace, and not indicative of the
> variety of weapons clerics could use.
Oh, you meant Ariakas. I thought you meant Verminaard.
Darryl Riser
news:3BD1DE01...@tc.umn.edu:
> I mean, this being of utter omnipotence was there at the beginning, and
> couldn't have simply gone away.
I like the view that our universe was created when God exhaled. It will
continue expanding until the end of the breath, then contract until the
inhalation is finished. Then, it will end and he'll create a new universe
by breathing out again.
How much attention do you pay to each of your breaths? :>
The idea that gods take a personal interest in us is a human conceit akin
to follicle mites worshiping us because our eyelashes make up the universe
they exist within. We know they exist. We do things which have earth
shattering effects on them. But they have about as much chance of
comprehending why we do those things as we do of understanding god. And the
well-being of our follicle mites is rarely an important point in our
decision-making process. :>
Adam Duguid
the
> High God at the top, and all others having been gathered/created/born
below
> him/her/it.
> According to my source material, after providing the initial spark, the
High God
> was apparently content to sit back, have a cold one, and let creation run
its
> course.
Who can blame him/her/it? Just out of curiosity, what is your source
material? Though I enjoy the books I've never taken it any further yet. More
importantly, is there a preferred cold beverage?
> And the three gods of magic have priests that are also mages, so they
don't
> really count.
>
The mages are these gods versions of priests? or there are priests for the
gods that supply magic to the mages? (this confusion could be due to
alcohol, and I don't have the excuse of having just created a universe)
> I'll play devil's advocate (or something) and say, "because we can't or
don't
> have the time to come up with anything better."
Why don't we? Here we are, we have the internet so we are all connected.
This is meant to be the golden age of information sharing so if we can't get
off our arses and do something this simple there isn't much hope. If you
think about it as well there are a few people on this NG who know their
stuff and think they know where previous systems have gone wrong. I'm up for
saying my piece if everybody else is (just waiting for the replies to roll
in...)
Adam
Adam Duguid
"Kish" <Kis...@pacbell.net> wrote in message
news:3BD1C6EB...@pacbell.net...
> Cap'n Twill wrote:
> >
> > Adam Duguid wrote:
>
> > Well, it wasn't so much a "tree" as it was a "river feeding a lake,"
with the
> > High God at the top, and all others having been gathered/created/born
below
> > him/her/it.
>
> The High God idea, thankfully, got kicked out in the novels, in favor of
> a being called Chaos. (Yes, I am aware not all the novels are official
> Dragonlance. Yes, the one I'm thinking of is very official--Dragons of
> Summer Flame.)
I read the book a couple of years ago, can you remind me how that par went
again?
>
>
> > Evil:
> > Takhisis, "Queen of Darkness," One Bad Mother. Her minions are allowed
to use
> > whatever they want, be it sling, mace, two-handed sword, someone's leg
(though
> > her chief priest/general of all her armies/Emperor of Ansalon used a
mace +3.
> > Meh).
>
> It's a case of having a mace equivalent to, say, the Flail of Ages.
> Don't leave out the part about how Verminaard's mace struck people
> blind.
The mace didn't blind people. It was a word to his God that did it. So when
is connection with her was broken the curse/spell wore off the others and
then they could get stuck in.
Adam Duguid
> continue expanding until the end of the breath, then contract until the
> inhalation is finished. Then, it will end and he'll create a new universe
> by breathing out again.
>
> How much attention do you pay to each of your breaths? :>
>
> The idea that gods take a personal interest in us is a human conceit akin
> to follicle mites worshiping us because our eyelashes make up the universe
> they exist within. We know they exist. We do things which have earth
> shattering effects on them. But they have about as much chance of
> comprehending why we do those things as we do of understanding god. And
the
> well-being of our follicle mites is rarely an important point in our
> decision-making process. :>
breathing would you not? This is in respect to the almighty one and then
his/her/it offspring the minor gods which were trying to beat the crap out
of each other and destroy a whole lot in the process. Saying that nice
visual at the start there. Have to try and remember it.
Adam
Cap'n Twill
> > Well, it wasn't so much a "tree" as it was a "river feeding a lake," with
> the
> > High God at the top, and all others having been gathered/created/born
> below
> > him/her/it.
> I like that view, think I'll have to remember it. Nice.
>
> > According to my source material, after providing the initial spark, the
> High God
> > was apparently content to sit back, have a cold one, and let creation run
> its
> > course.
>
> Who can blame him/her/it? Just out of curiosity, what is your source
> material? Though I enjoy the books I've never taken it any further yet. More
> importantly, is there a preferred cold beverage?
I was looking at the oft-maligned "Tales of the Lance" boxed set. Although the
information is pretty much the same in all the books I've read on it.
As for liquid refreshment, well, I wouldn't know.
Bastard never returns my calls.
> > And the three gods of magic have priests that are also mages, so they
> don't
> > really count.
> >
> The mages are these gods versions of priests? or there are priests for the
> gods that supply magic to the mages? (this confusion could be due to
> alcohol, and I don't have the excuse of having just created a universe)
I meant that in order to become a priest of one of the gods of magic, a person
has to first start as a mage in that god's (non-clerical) order, and then be
initiated into the priesthood.
> > I'll play devil's advocate (or something) and say, "because we can't or
> don't
> > have the time to come up with anything better."
>
> Why don't we? Here we are, we have the internet so we are all connected.
> This is meant to be the golden age of information sharing so if we can't get
> off our arses and do something this simple there isn't much hope. If you
> think about it as well there are a few people on this NG who know their
> stuff and think they know where previous systems have gone wrong. I'm up for
> saying my piece if everybody else is (just waiting for the replies to roll
> in...)
I'm too busy pretending to have a life.
Cap'n Twill
Although I don't seem to be doing a very good job at the moment.
Darryl Riser
> But if one breath from you affected your child you would think more
> about breathing would you not? This is in respect to the almighty one
> and then his/her/it offspring the minor gods which were trying to beat
> the crap out of each other and destroy a whole lot in the process.
I see that as running BG2 fights with the scripting on. Like when I'm trying
to sneak my ranger along that row of trapped wands in the Irenicus Lab and
he keeps trying to attack the dwarves.
I click on the stand. He starts toward it, remembers the dwarves and turns
around and heads back. We fight for a few more clicks and then I either turn
off the AI and make him do what I want or I leave the AI on and let him
fight the dwarves *before* be turns off all the wand traps (usually setting
off at least one trap in the process).
So god has to decide what's more important ... letting his children keep
their free will or making them play nice. In Judeo-Christian religion, we
get to keep our free will.
There have been a couple of notable exceptions, though. The great flood and
Sodom and Gomorrah are pretty good examples of bitch pitching on a godlike
scale. Maybe God was watching his PC chase a fleeing goblin toward a no-save
petrification trap and decided leaving the AI on wasn't worth losing his no-
reload game.)
(I was a youth minister in past life.)
> Saying that nice visual at the start there. Have to try and remember
> it.
Thanks. I watched a documentary on parasites on the Discovery Channel last
week and I've been showering 12 times a day ever since. :>
Kish
>
> "Kish" <Kis...@pacbell.net> wrote in message
> news:3BD1C6EB...@pacbell.net...
> > Cap'n Twill wrote:
> > >
> > > Adam Duguid wrote:
> >
> > > Well, it wasn't so much a "tree" as it was a "river feeding a lake,"
> with the
> > > High God at the top, and all others having been gathered/created/born
> below
> > > him/her/it.
> >
> > The High God idea, thankfully, got kicked out in the novels, in favor of
> > a being called Chaos. (Yes, I am aware not all the novels are official
> > Dragonlance. Yes, the one I'm thinking of is very official--Dragons of
> > Summer Flame.)
>
> I read the book a couple of years ago, can you remind me how that par went
> again?
Spoilers for Dragons of Summer Flame.
The entire creation tale of Dragonlance was redone in Dragons of Summer
Flame. Instead of being created by a High God and leaving (Good) or
being exiled (Evil), they were all created by Chaos, and created the
universe against their Father's wishes.
> >
> >
> > > Evil:
> > > Takhisis, "Queen of Darkness," One Bad Mother. Her minions are allowed
> to use
> > > whatever they want, be it sling, mace, two-handed sword, someone's leg
> (though
> > > her chief priest/general of all her armies/Emperor of Ansalon used a
> mace +3.
> > > Meh).
> >
> > It's a case of having a mace equivalent to, say, the Flail of Ages.
> > Don't leave out the part about how Verminaard's mace struck people
> > blind.
> The mace didn't blind people. It was a word to his God that did it.
Nightbringer. The effect was dependent on his faith, but also on the
mace--apparently the mace was some kind of unholy item of Takhisis.
Darryl Riser
> Nightbringer. The effect was dependent on his faith, but also on the
> mace--apparently the mace was some kind of unholy item of Takhisis.
The device used for magic in the Dragonlance stories seemed to be that you
had to say a command word to activate the magic in items that could be
turned off and on or that had a random chance of creating an effect.
Raistlin's staff was enchanted, but he had to say "shirak" for it to light
up and "dulak" for it to go dark. The mace caused the blindness, but the
cleric had to speak the command word as he hit with it. (A neat way of
handling the 1-in-4 chance of causing blindness on each strike.)
People don't think about how the magic is activated in CRPGs because it's
all done with icons and invisible die rolls. When you put a magical device
into a book, you should mention (at least the first time it's used) how the
power is activated.
Adam Duguid
> > it.
>
> Thanks. I watched a documentary on parasites on the Discovery Channel last
> week and I've been showering 12 times a day ever since. :>
That's not as nice a visual by the way. How bad could the show have been to
leave such a lasting impression?
Adam Duguid
Thanks for the reminder.
> > > It's a case of having a mace equivalent to, say, the Flail of Ages.
> > > Don't leave out the part about how Verminaard's mace struck people
> > > blind.
> > The mace didn't blind people. It was a word to his God that did it.
>
> Nightbringer. The effect was dependent on his faith, but also on the
> mace--apparently the mace was some kind of unholy item of Takhisis.
Can you expand on this one for me please. I don't have access to the
original books anymore (shall have to remedy) How was Verminaard stopped? I
thought it was by have access to his god disconnected and so the blindness
stopped. Do you have any more info on the mace as though I can imagine that
it was blessed by Takhisis I didn't think it did anything to it.
Adam
Darryl Riser
> That's not as nice a visual by the way. How bad could the show have
> been to leave such a lasting impression?
All those close-ups or microscopic beasts that make Demigorgon look like a
pet kitty as the narrator droned on about how its impossible to get through
a day without picking up at least one of them. Now every time I get an
itch, I picture a horde of the little beasties migrating across my arm. Some
of those mites are really nasty looking.
Cap'n Twill
Takhisis became... distracted, and suddenly had much less inclination to aid
one lowly mortal. Verminaard's weapon still had its effects, but his priestly
spells were no longer available.
According to the game modules, Nightbringer is a mace +2, and requires a save
vs. spells on every hit. In the books, this is portrayed as needing a command
to activate it, and is always successful.
Cap'n Twill
And we all learned that fancy helmets may look cool, but tend to be a bad
thing.
Andy Lee
wrote:
lls?
>>
>>There are two notable examples to the contrary, and they are, in my opinion,
>>the greatest predecessors of fantasy role playing. First, Gandalf, in the
>>Lord of the Rings, used Orcrist, an elven longsword, almost exclusively.
>
>He had the sword, but I can't remember him using it in battle. But
>he indeed is a wizard, using a sword.
Yep when He fought the Balrog in Moria also in the The Hobbit it
metions him using the Sword during the trip through the Goblin mines
>
>>Secondly, Merlin was given Excalibur and wielded it in many battles before
>>Uther even came around, let alone Arthur.
>
>And how on Earth could I have forgotten that?
>
>[snip]
>
>Marvael
Andy Lee
Marvael
<andy...@at.siemens.de> wrote:
>On Sat, 20 Oct 2001 00:34:52 +0200, Marvael <ma...@wish.net.nospam>
>wrote:
>
>lls?
>>>
>>>There are two notable examples to the contrary, and they are, in my opinion,
>>>the greatest predecessors of fantasy role playing. First, Gandalf, in the
>>>Lord of the Rings, used Orcrist, an elven longsword, almost exclusively.
>>
>>He had the sword, but I can't remember him using it in battle. But
>>he indeed is a wizard, using a sword.
>
>Yep when He fought the Balrog in Moria
He fought that by crashing his stave onto the bridge. He and the
balrog fell down into the abyss when the bridge came apart.
>also in the The Hobbit it
>metions him using the Sword during the trip through the Goblin mines
True.
>>
>>>Secondly, Merlin was given Excalibur and wielded it in many battles before
>>>Uther even came around, let alone Arthur.
>>
>>And how on Earth could I have forgotten that?
>>
>>[snip]
>>
>>Marvael
>
>Andy Lee