33 replies to this topic

[the bigg]

NI works, so you can use that. As for in-game reasons, I'm the wrong person - try asking Littiz

EDIT: SK will utterly destroy your game, try using NI instead.

Edited by the bigg, 30 March 2005 - 01:11 AM.

[Rathwellin the Bard]

I've had *very* few problems with ShadowKeeper over the years. The interface is clean and easy to use.

On the other hand while NI might be technically better I hate using it.

[Caedwyr]

You can also use the avatar morphing script that can be found in the G3 Tweak pack. It lets you choose which avatar you want to use for your player.

[Littiz]

Also, I personally cannot see any valid reason why an elf can't be a Sword Angel - What's up with that? While elves might generally be more arrogant than humans, they're also more noble, right?

Yes, in average.
But it's a common theme in fantasy (LotR, D&D) that humans, somehow because of their inherent mortality and the fire that burns them, are able to reach the greatest degrees of skills, passions, valor (or evilness).
I've always appreciated this classic theme

Anyway, I think you can hack the character in two ways:
-by changing his race
-by changing just his animation.

While I'm not sure the first solution would work smoothly, the second one is pretty safe.
Either case, I'd avoid SK if possible: true, it's a fine tool, but I seem to remember it may clash with some advanced modifications, and nowadays everyone has advanced modifications installed
NI is safer, and there are other advanced tools to choose from.
If you need help, just post

Edited by Littiz, 30 March 2005 - 11:18 AM.

[the bigg]

I've had *very* few problems with ShadowKeeper over the years.  The interface is clean and easy to use.

On the other hand while NI might be technically better I hate using it.

If one of your characters is a custom kit (100% chance in Refinements) you'll get screwed up for sure.

[Rathwellin the Bard]

If one of your characters is a custom kit (100% chance in Refinements) you'll get screwed up for sure.

I beg to differ. It's not easy but it can be done with SK.

[T.G.Maestro]

Yes, in average.
But it's a common theme in fantasy (LotR, D&D) that humans, somehow because of their inherent mortality and the fire that burns them, are able to reach the greatest degrees of skills, passions, valor (or evilness).
I've always appreciated this classic theme

To be honest, I never mentioned before, but I always wanted to argue with this - I always thought that elves should be available as legal SAs - most of the SA's spiritual and emphatic skills play out very well for an elf, sometimes much better than for a human.

[Littiz]

Hmmm... It's not that I can't be convinced, mind you.
It's just that I'd like to keep as concept that a character should be a bit more tied to mortality and suffering than elves are, in order to be a SA.
Kind of a short timed, overbrilliant gem, rather than the much_too_perfect being I'd have to imagine to portray an elven Sword Angel.
Humans have to have something to be envied for, after all..

[T.G.Maestro]

You are correct if you see things from this PoV. Still, if you take that elves are tied much closer to nature, generally despise all forms of evil, hold a special contempt against demons and undead, are often considered most skilled with emphatic or spiritual powers, things get another turn.
What you say about the SA is absolutely correct, so don't get me wrong - the problem here that it comes from your style of roleplaying. You cannot limit a character that way without removing the options to roleplay a character. You offer a character that is brilliant, but looks almost pre-made: the player has quite a few choices to do anything with it aside from the given tools. If you check any other classes you'll see that there is a much greater "freedom" for the player in all cases: even a dark Necromancer can be played as good, for example. While a human can be the way you describe it as the prereqisite for the SA's character, they can be the opposite as well - the same for elves.
In other words, I say that keep the ROLEPLAYING restrictions for the players, it is enough for us to set the most needed technical and characteristical limits. :thumb:

[Rathwellin the Bard]

There is also the fact that elves are usually better swordsmen than humans and the fact that in 3e their lifespans got shortened considerably. They are no longer so 'immortal.'

[T.G.Maestro]

in 3e their lifespans got shortened considerably. They are no longer so 'immortal.'

Which was more than unnecessary IMO, but still, it is there.

[Rathwellin the Bard]

Going from 2000 to a mere 300 years was a pretty extreme makeover.

I personally don?t really care for that change, but most of the folks that I play PnP with really like it.

[Littiz]

Ok, a bit more freedom of roleplaying, then. Elven Sword Angels it will be
I'll try and include the needed changes in the next (bugfixing) release.

[Andyr]

So, what will the new racial restrictions be?

I think it'd probably be best if it were open to all races, unless there's a really compelling reason why not...

[Rathwellin the Bard]

Elves, Half Elves, & Humans are a no-brainer for me.

I *might* be able to see a Gnome or Halfling Sword Angel, but it seems a bit silly. Yoda in BGII.

I have a really hard time picturing a Dwarf Sword Angel. It's almost as bad as that winged dwarf pictured in the BoED.

Half Ork ... meh ... on the fence.

[T.G.Maestro]

I *might* be able to see a Gnome or Halfling Sword Angel, but it seems a bit silly. Yoda in BGII.

:w00t: :thumb:

So, what will the new racial restrictions be?

I think it'd probably be best if it were open to all races, unless there's a really compelling reason why not...

Rathwellin said it best, I think. Somehow the other racial options seem more ..odd.

[Littiz]

Actually, one of the first reasons for these restrictions is that a SA shares a part of the monk training (we were even considering to add Second Wind to SA's HLA table).
Monks can only be human, so...

On the other hand, if a player asked the option to play a Halfling SA, I'd feel partially obliged to grant it, as there aren't that many SA players in the first place...

[T.G.Maestro]

Monks can only be human, so...

Exactly, and this is one of 2ndE BG2's most idiotic feature. :glare:
I don't see any reason why monks couldn't be elven or half-elven for example.

[Caedwyr]

I think part of the reason, is that culturally, most monestaries where you would receive your training are run by humans, and it is extremely rare for non-humans to be admited to the monestary to study as a monk. I think the reasoning is not that other races are incapable of becoming a monk, but rather 99.999999% of them won't have the opportunity to become a monk.