Why Kensai/Mage?

Curdis · Post by **Curdis** » Thu Jul 12, 2001 9:10 pm

Fable,

I'm not trying to be obtuse and I accept that your the only person to make a contribution to the why should I (how can I) roleplay a Kensai/Mage debate. But how do you not use the Kensai AC bonus? You can be nearly as good with a sword as a straight fighter and you can be much better with a long sword than a normal mage as an elven fighter/mage.

I am always scrupulous to commence any of these role playing related comments with a 'your game, your way' disclaimer. But as it IS the offical (A)D&D license it should not be unexpected to get a few of us old PnP folks trying to make sense of how it works.

In my first post I stated that if a player (in a PnP campaign, I was DMing - Not BG) could come up with a satisfactory explanation I'd let them have it their way. If that was the setting I'd still need some convincing, but here it's your game, your way and I applaude your commitment to the rather more intangible benefits of sticking to a role. - Curdis

fable · Post by **fable** » Thu Jul 12, 2001 11:59 pm

Curdis asks:
But how do you not use the Kensai AC bonus? You can be nearly as good with a sword as a straight fighter and you can be much better with a long sword than a normal mage as an elven fighter/mage.

Had I wanted to powerplay, a multiclass fighter/mage would have been an excellent option, IMO. With the ToB module, I think they really have it made, rising equally through two very different classes. I could have divested myself of my armor at a high level, keeping the benefits of all the spells while gaining insanely godlike fighter capabilities and bonuses. But again, that's what I didn't do.

As to being better with a sword than a normal mage: sure. That's the point of a warrior mage. They're not quite as adept with spells (especially non-violent spells, like Wizard Eye) as pure spellcasters, but they have better fighting skills; and when the two are combined, they make a formidable playing character. Of course, it takes a while to get those spells up and running, down which time they can be easily turned into roach paste. The real magic powerhouse in those parties was Edwin, while the tank was Korgan.

I only wish the game provided a close enough down-to-the-ground view for more striking visuals, like a flaming sword, and glowing auras. Damn, it would have been fun to see my character stride forward cloaked in a midnight blue aura, wielding such a sword, grinning widely! My first mage character in GemStone was like that. Part bard, too, but that was because he never shut up at telling stories.

[ 07-13-2001: Message edited by: fable ]

Xyx · Post by **Xyx** » Fri Jul 13, 2001 2:23 am

Originally posted by Curdis:
The Kensai benefits are supposedly confered to a fighter kit as a consequence of a very special devotion to a regime of training and ethics which would exclude the special devotion to a regime of training and study which a mage requires.

The game does not constrain you to be a Kensai/Mage if you wish to be a spellsword. You can be a (nonhuman) fighter/mage (no kits) or a (human) dualed fighter/mage - mage/fighter. The game does constrain you so you can't be a barbarian/mage or paladin/mage and the same reasoning used for these restrictions sits very well against the Kensai.

What's all this about Mages needing so much time for their studies? If that were so, Mages wouldn't be able to dual or multi at all, would they?

The game designers did not pass judgement over dual or multi combos. The reason why Barbarians cannot dual is the same as why you cannot dual a Ranger to a Thief. Engine restrictions.

Furthermore, I like warrior-mages. I like Humans. If I wanted to do some heavy duty powergaming, I would get myself a Thief and set traps all over the place. That's not my thing; warrior-mages are. I think the vanilla Fighter kit stinks, and apparently there is some sort of taboo on dualling a Kensai. If I went for the Berserker-Mage instead, would I not be accused of "bad roleplaying"?

Fezek · Post by **Fezek** » Fri Jul 13, 2001 3:04 am

OK so here's my two pence worth on this whole Kensai/CPA, Kensai/proctologist debate. Simply put, it's cheesy and unreal. Consider this thought: It's March. Would you really have your accounts checked over by a Katana wielding maniac? No you wouldn't. And as for the Kensai/proctologist wielding a katana-ouch!! I'm just not buying it.

Xyx · Post by **Xyx** » Fri Jul 13, 2001 3:52 am

Wow, that was contributive...

Sorry if I step on anyone's toes when I say I think Kensai-Mages are fun. I'd just like to hear what is so wrong about it...

Firecc · Post by **Firecc** » Fri Jul 13, 2001 4:36 am

Many posts here - nice.

Ok, maybe I must make myself more clear. The reason I posted this topic is because I am interessted in role playing. Several topics on this forum are about the most powerful group/main character. [Big yawn] Boring in my opinion. I don't really care about how much "cool" items people managed to accumulate during their play. But hey.

This is a CRPG

[no sh*t, Sherlock] and anyone should play this game to generate the most fun out of it. That should be quite obvious to all. No need to point that out time and time again.

>>Rant warning<<
I think the fuss about the kensai/magi steams from the way they use the symbol. [Gaah, my english skill is dropping

] Take the barbarian par example, if I chose the barbarian kit I would be surprised if they allowed the player to dual class to a mage. I believe many would. The reason for that is that the barbarian symbolizes a brute force, hatred towards magic and not too civilized. At least for me, movies like "Conan - the barbarian" kind of help established that. As well as RPG novells and different RPG's.

A kesai also represents certain virtues. Diverging from somewhat established virtues/values with no explaination will always cause a fuss.

>>End Rant (?)<<

Where was I? ...Ah yes, role play. I know that many don't care about role playing during playing a CRPG since it becomes a mental state more than actual role playing. For me though, it is so much more fun to play a character with a personal goal. I like playing paladins in CRPG since they are so... easy. "Do the right thing" and stuff like that. Their will do to "good"

all the time is fun and easy to play with in a game with pre-written answers.

When I play PnP I always ask myself "Why...". Why does my character choose this and that, etc. Same question pop into my mind playing kensai/mage. Why would a kensai leave his/her craft to become a mage? Personal reasons? Powerhungry (why not start as a mage then or a fighter?). Maybe a must to survive in the very very hostile Athkatla with surroundings?

If you have given this a thought I would be very intressted in knowing your answer on "Why...". From a role play perspective.

Firecc

Laurelei · Post by **Laurelei** » Fri Jul 13, 2001 5:05 am

As I believe Budweiser once asked....Why ask Why?

Fezek · Post by **Fezek** » Fri Jul 13, 2001 5:10 am

Originally posted by Xyx:
Wow, that was contributive... :rolleyes

...

Predictable response. Sarcasm unnecessary.

Xyx · Post by **Xyx** » Fri Jul 13, 2001 5:43 am

Originally posted by Fezek:
Predictable response.

Are we playing mind games here? If so, I'm outta here. I was expecting grown-up discussion, not trolling...

Fezek · Post by **Fezek** » Fri Jul 13, 2001 7:43 am

@Xyx-san..my apologies for being rude. Here is my Olive branch ##offers branch with white dove##

My humour can be somewhat flippant at times. It is in no way meant to offend/irritate anyone.

If you respond to this can you also give me your opinion of "Power Word, Muntz" from the "spell's that were left out" thread. If you think it's funny/pathetic, i'll know where we stand.

Cheers.

Xyx · Post by **Xyx** » Fri Jul 13, 2001 7:53 am

@Fezek: I humbly accept your peace offering

Wish I knew what the inside joke about the Muntz stuff is, so I could reply...

Firecc · Post by **Firecc** » Fri Jul 13, 2001 8:00 am

What happened to the topic?

Xyx · Post by **Xyx** » Fri Jul 13, 2001 10:07 am

Very well, back to the topic

As I see it now, there are several different roleplaying approaches to the issue.

Old school: Heavy stereotyping. Kensai don't do magic, all Barbarians want to be like Conan, all Paladins strive for the utmost righteousness (and therefore have practically identical personalities, so an identity crisis becomes likely

).

Modern: Go with the flow. The game allows Kensai and Barbarians to dual to Mages, so maybe the BG variants are less like the old PnP stereotypes.

Twisted: Some people want to, but fail to live up to the "ideal" due to character flaws (not because of powergaming). Provides plenty roleplaying opportunities as you can anguish and wallow in self-pity about why you were unfairly cast out of the Order of the Radiant Heart or the like.

Fun: No pre-set plans, just do what seems most amusing at the time.

Comments? Criticism?

Curdis · Post by **Curdis** » Sun Jul 15, 2001 8:45 pm

Curdisclaimer - This is a roleplaying discussion thread. If it doesn't involve roleplaying it does NOT belong here. BG 1 and 2 are your games do with them as you see fit. If you want to play a Ludite Samari and use the CD's as throwing stars - you go girl!

Xyx wrote:
Old school: Heavy stereotyping. Kensai don't do magic, all Barbarians want to be like Conan, all Paladins strive for the utmost righteousness (and therefore have practically identical personalities, so an identity crisis becomes likely ).

Well I guess I'm old school. But I totally disagree with the Heavy Stereotype comment. Is having a druid grand master in Axe weilding with the special ability fell timber appropriate? (hint: the answer is NO) does not doing this represent a Heavy Stereotype...well if you say so. Kensai don't like magic - sword saint - special devotion to weapon. Also part of a special oriental setting. If to role play your particular vision of a character and this is the closest BG 2 offers fair enough. All paladins strive for the same ethos - they have to be LG so that there is some similarity is hardly surprising.

Xyx wrote: Modern: Go with the flow. The game allows Kensai and Barbarians to dual to Mages, so maybe the BG variants are less like the old PnP stereotypes.

'The game' BG 1 & 2 and PnP does NOT allow Barbarians to dual to mage. It is the classic counter example. I also take exception to the term 'modern' - does this mean that this view is also attached to the intellectual school which brought us 'modernism' and the Italian futurists?

Xyx wrote: Twisted: Some people want to, but fail to live up to the "ideal" due to character flaws (not because of powergaming). Provides plenty roleplaying opportunities as you can anguish and wallow in self-pity about why you were unfairly cast out of the Order of the Radiant Heart or the like.

Well I guess I'm twisted too. The above example sounds just like an in game character with their warts and all persona. This I like, this is good. So I must take exception with the choice of label. - This is normal roleplaying - lets call this group normal. For example the book Stark has some DnD players who play normal (sic)'twisted' characters.

Xyx wrote: Fun: No pre-set plans, just do what seems most amusing at the time.

If you are playing a character with a chaotic alignment this sounds like a good idea. I have had **gasp** ->fun<- playing a Paladin who innocently made others life a misery by being sickly nice and firm on the law. So I must take exception with the choice of label. Lets call this Chaotic.

Just scratching an old wound - Curdis

Firecc · Post by **Firecc** » Mon Jul 16, 2001 3:54 am

To play a character that doesn't corresponds to the "classical"/sterotype way is usually always more fun. At least I think so. Take Drizzt for example, a drow who is good (!!!) in alignment. Dissliked by all and has to sneak around or else be killed due to his skin color.

A "Rule Geek" would say that it would be impossible for a drow to be of good alignment, because the rulebook doesn't mention it. Bah!

The issue is to make an interesting character and a believable story on why the character chose to become (in this context) a mage after spending all these years(days in BGII?) training to be a kensai.

Hmmmm, how do you do when answering questions, like quest questions? Some answers/actions do not generate as much xp as the "correct" ones. Do you do the "correct" ones or those your character would do?

Xyx · Post by **Xyx** » Mon Jul 16, 2001 1:38 pm

@ Curdis: I appear to be guilty of some stereotyping myself; my apologies if I have offended you in any way. You made good points, to which I would like to respond in the interest of discussion, no more.

Originally posted by Curdis:
'The game' BG 1 & 2 and PnP does NOT allow Barbarians to dual to mage.

You are absolutely right and I stand corrected.

I would be interested in your opinion on the following: While the designers saw fit to ban the Stalker-Cleric combo, the Kensai-Mage remains. Also, D&D3 has no problems with anything-Wizard multis, including Barbarians. I'm not saying that it's OK just because it can be done, but the designers must have had some ideas when they allowed these things.

Originally posted by Curdis:
The above example sounds just like an in game character with their warts and all persona. This I like, this is good. So I must take exception with the choice of label. - This is normal roleplaying - lets call this group normal.

In retrospect, 'twisted' is too strong of a word. Calling it 'normal' would mean calling Minsc, Edwin or Haer'Dalis normal.

Originally posted by Curdis:
I have had **gasp** ->fun<- playing a Paladin who innocently made others life a misery by being sickly nice and firm on the law. So I must take exception with the choice of label. Lets call this Chaotic.

Again, I stand corrected. Let me assure you my intention was not to label all other ways as not fun.

Curdis · Post by **Curdis** » Mon Jul 16, 2001 7:41 pm

@xyx - I'm notoriously hard to offend. So no offence has been taken, as I'm sure none was intended.

D&D3 has been modified to codify all of the possibilities so that Dungeon Masters do not have to make exceptions. It is all O.K. by the rules. This is a very valuable contribution to PnP as it disarms the rules lawyers (& geeks) and places the authority and emphasis on the mileu creator/adjudicator where it should be (and always was).

I would consider Minsc (et al) to be normal roleplaying and would encourage and reward such activities in players. So long as a player proposed Boo equivalent did not have "instant Liche Kill stare" or any such malarky. Other DMs may allow just that and like BG 1&2 - your game - your call.

I suspect that BioWare did not disable Kensai/Mage because of the howls of anquish that this would have produced from "powergamers"

.

When answering quest questions it depends on who is doing the answering. My characters always give the appropriate answers regardless of consequence. My Chaotic and or Evil characers may lie and deceive deliberately but this is always a conscious choice. I am currently playing a CE character so I can say all of the things my Paladin would NEVER say (i.e.) to Daleson in Nalia's keep - "start running and see how far you get". It cost me 2 rep points but that character (given the choice) was NEVER going to say anything else.

Hope this discussion is still of some interest. - Curdis