23 replies to this topic

[BigRob]

Simbul, on Sep 15 2007, 04:20 PM, said:

Edwin is certainly not afraid of being recognized If he was, would he wear Thavyan trademark red robes everywhere?

Probably not... He might be under orders to grow his hair, but since not all mages who wear red are from Thay, he thinks he can get away with keeping them.


Of course, the simplest explanation might be that Bioware's art department got a request saying "Draw us a mage portrait" and no-one mentioned baldness or tattoos.

[Simbul]

Heh, Edwin romance actually tries to explain why he isn't bald, I remember PC can ask this question to Edwin, don't remember the answer though.

[Ayce]

Yeah, but he can still be funny bald................

And Minsc with the tatoos and baldness, maybe he's not Rashameer at all, maybe he was rejected by Thayvian society, made an outcast...................

[yarpen]

Maybe. Maybe he was my grandmother.
We have got only these facts. They're illogical - it can be a joke or mistake of Bioware. Nevermind. But you shouldn't treat him as a 100% Rashemarian fighter. I can say that he's more a combination of barbarian-ranger.

[Ayce]

After much consideration, I find it makes most sense to make Minsc a barbarian, perhaps some Dajima related bonuses can still be factored in (I don't know what though).

His stats seem to indicate barbarian, it just wasn't available in BG1, so they went with ranger, then bioware likely did not want to undue that, so they left him a ranger even though his character says barbarian more than anything else. Sure, he's got some dialog strings/reactions that indicate a love/fondness for nature, but his personality and most of his dialog and background just say barbarian.

I mean the Rashameer Ranger kit can be as simple as free two-handed weapon proficiency and a beserk ability (as I indicated in my original post), but he could just as easily be a barbarian with barbarian rage (after all, even bioware gave him the beserk ability, presumably to make him more "barbariany"), choosing the proficiencies as outlined in my original post.

On a personal note, this discussion brings to mind all of the purist "the game should be played as intended by the designers" comments you always here in various forums. When you think about it, many of the decisions at bioware weren't made in the interest of game continuity or the way things were intended to come out. Many things came out the way they did because bioware rushed to distribution and didn't finish/polish a number of things. I would argue the UB mods in BG1 & BG2 actually bring the game closer to what it was intended to be in the first place, and that the commercial release was not entirely "the original game as it was intended."

Just another comment to spark some controversy.

Edited by Ayce, 19 November 2007 - 01:14 PM.

[Miloch]

You can of course make him a barbarian, berserker or whatever you want with Level 1 NPCs.

Though I thought you were talking about making a specific kit...

I always thought it stupid that barbarians max out at 2 proficiency points in melee weapons. But rangers have the same limitation. Berserkers and other fighters get the edge there, by being able to assign the full 5 points.

[Ayce]

Quote

Though I thought you were talking about making a specific kit...

I was, I'm just saying that after due consideration, I think Minsc is more appropriately a barbarian rather than going to the trouble of making a new kit.

I had a "new kit" idea in mind (which was the genesis of this post), but I've reconsidered it and think Minsc should be a barbarian.

Quote

You can of course make him a barbarian, berserker or whatever you want with Level 1 NPCs.

What's that?

[Miloch]

Ayce, on Nov 20 2007, 04:18 PM, said:

Quote

You can of course make him a barbarian, berserker or whatever you want with Level 1 NPCs.

What's that?

A new mod here.