I'd like to point out before I start I'm playing the non-EE version of BG2 with the fixpack and BGT mod just to avoid any confusion.

Anyway I decided to look at the beast master class with the intention of dual classing to a cleric later on.

I noticed something a bit 'odd' it seems the beast master with the skills that have two levels in 'two weapon style'. My understanding is that reduces the penalty for two weapons being used at a time (one in the off hand that isn't ranged).

At first I thought the skill was for two handed weapons but that definitely does not seem to be the case.

The thing is it doesn't make too much sense for a beast master. Based on this site http://baldursgate.wikia.com/wiki/Beast_Master

Literally clubs, quarterstaff, crossbows, longbows, shortbows are all two handed weapons and the only single handed weapons are darts and slings neither of which can be wielded in your off hand.

I know the skill is a hangover from the ranger class but two skill levels in a skill which is literally unusable seems like a big mistake.

Yup, you can dual weild clubs, and that's the extent of your dual weilding options.

Yes, this is stupid but it's not like the DnD rules have any shortage of illogical rules. For example, why can't a wizard weild a hammer? Sure, he might not use it as well as a fighter but you don't need any special training to lift a hammer and swing it. Prohibiting the wizard from even equpiing it is just stupid.

In the beastmasters case, maybe in the Forgotten Realms, beastmasters have an allergic reaction to metal and instanly drop it when they touch it. Or maybe because the weapon is metal, their puny brains just can't fathom where to hold it. Or maybe if they try and hold a metal weapon, their heads will explode. Who the hell knows?

Quite. Another (perhaps more telling) example is Fighter/Druid (Jaheira) who can wield a scimitar or a dagger but not any other sword, not even a short sword! Why? It's just plain stupid.

The wizard can use a hammer in the pen and paper rules. No it is not. Because she is a Druid. Druids get their powers from a nature god\godess. By getting the powers the druid has to stick with weapons allowed by her deity. If she breaks her druidic oath, the spells and her special druid abilities will be taken from her. The oath includes sticking to the traditional druid weapons + remaining True Neutral. It is basically what makes a druid a druid. I think it is in the manual as well.

The scimitar is considered a symbol of the moon (I think it was) by the druids.

I just spotted it after a nights sleep, for some silly reason I had in my head clubs were two handed.

Though, perhaps oddly, in the AD&D 2e core rules, and thus in Baldur's Gate, multi- and dual-class priests are not bound by the armour restrictions of their priest class. Thus Jaheira and other fighter-druids can wear metal armour. (Clerics, the only other priest class in the game, of course don't have any armour restrictions anyway.)

I think they are bound by the restrictions in the pen and paper rules?

That's not correct, or at least not necessarily correct. Druids are presented in AD&D 2e as an example of a 'speciality' priest class (as opposed to the 'generic' cleric), i.e. one devoted to a specific deity or mythos; they are the only such example detailed in the core P&P rules, though it is stated explicitly that they are but one possible example and the DM is free to design others. Because BG1 was based on the core rules and BG2 used expanded material in a somewhat haphazard way, druids are also the only 'speciality' priest class in those games (priests of specific deities do of course exist in BG2 and BG1EE but as cleric kits rather than distinct classes).

On top of what's in the core rules, it's mentioned in more than one non-core book, including some specific to the Forgotten Realms, that druids do worship and get their powers from nature deities (the alternative possibility that they just worship nature itself is also mentioned, though I don't know if that applies to the Forgotten Realms setting).

Yes they do in the Forgotten Realms setting. It is firmly explained in the campaign setting book. Jaheira worships Silvanus, for example.


Correct. The campaign setting trumps the Core Rulebooks. The Core books are mostly just "in general". Not much lore at all involved. Different gameworlds have different rules\tweaks.

The Dragonlance setting has a lot of differences for mages, I remember. Their spells improve based on how the moons are aligned etc.

No they aren't, at least not in the core rules. The multi-class rules in the 2nd Edition Player's Handbook state that multi-class priests (which includes druids) must abide by the weapon restrictions of their priest class but says nothing about the armour restrictions, whereas the same section does specify armour (but not weapon) restrictions for multi-class wizards and thieves. It might be reasonable for a DM to house-rule that fighter-druids can't wear metal armour, and I think some non-core books do say that, but it's not in the core rules. Therefore it was correct for the developers to make it that way in BG1 (original edition), and also correct, or at least a valid option, for them to keep it that way in BG2.

They are absolutely not allowed to do that in the Forgotten Realms (second edition), though. I checked. Druids are NOT under any circumstances allowed to wear armour with metal in them. I checked. Baldur's Gate uses the Forgotten Realms setting rules, so Jaheira being allowed to walk around in a full plate is a mistake.

If this had been a Greyhawk game this would have been allowed (as far as I know)

Fair enough; I probably don't have access to the relevant book, so I'm happy to take your word for it. Though it's still debatable whether it amounts to a "mistake" given the somewhat haphazard and arbitrary application of Realms-specific rules (and non-core rules generally) in BG2, and more so for BG1 given that BG1 was based only on the core rules (hence my further edit to my previous post making the distinction - apologies, your post crossed with that edit).

I spend too much money buying old RPG books on ebay, hehe. That is how I know this crap.

The core d&d books used the Grehawk setting as the primary setting. It worked great back then, but after WOTC bought the franchise from TSR they discontinued Greyhawk and mostly went for FR and Eberron. So it was a bit silly to keep using Greyhawk as their default for the core books.

If you play Temple of Elemental Evil, you will notice all the gods and stuff from the core books are in it. Temple of Elemental Evil is a Greyhawk game.


The rule of thumb is that the setting\Gameworld always alters the core rules if needed. You are playing in the gameworld, after all.