I can't help feeling Bioware had the right idea here. I'd expect a mage to be able to identify magical items, and even a fighter's going to know what a long sword +1 looks like by the time he's level 10, surely?
Well, there is a reason why the wizards have a spell called Identify. I agree it is logical that a fighter should be able to recognise a long sword +1 *within Baldur's Gate*. This is because all non-unique long swords +1 share the same icon. In P&P it is highly unlike to find even two long swords +1 that look the same. I know it is difficult to apply this to the game due to the way it works, and things are not exactly made better by the fact that you do not even need a spell to see whether an item is enchanted.
Doesn't wisdom represent knowledge, among other things? And intelligence certainly aids learning.
You are right. My problem with the lore bonus is that the character earns it all at 1st level which does not make much sense. On the other hand, I guess I could replace it with a bonus per level.
One of my reasons for limiting lore to bards is that this is one of the more difficult classes to implement due to its many losely defined skills and roleplaying oriented abilities. By removing lore from the other classes bards naturaly gain an advantage.
Well, kobolds and hobgoblins are among the most prominent enemy races in BG.
Yeah. Using the gnomes as an example, a +4 AC bonus against attacks from gnolls, ogres, ogre mages and half-ogres is also fairly neat. Actually, dwarves are supposed to gain the to hit bonus against orcs, half-orcs, goblins and hobgoblins and gnomes should gain a bonus against kobolds and goblins. Unfortunately most of these creatures are not in the game, so maybe it would be fair to substitute it for a bonus vs. ogrillions, half-ogres and ogres instead.
-Echon