I'd love to see a BG3 but I have to say, it would have to be a new character back to lvl one. The original protagonist's story is over. The new character and story can still be linked to the Bhall spawn fallout (perhaps a grandson?) but overall a new adventure.
Lemernis he said Aurora engine, that was NWN if I recall and not the 2d isometric style Trent Oster has said he is keen to stick with. that would be the infinity engine that bg uses.
" My ideal party-based RPG'S is D&D, isometric and a 2D/3D mix. Great characters, voice acting on an epic story, set in an open world"
If I recall right in one of the earlier (Im just too tired to search it ) post about BG3 they said it will be with new engine and 3D, I belive it will eventually be 2D/3D mix, as Trent said, At least I hope so! its the best combination
I meant the aurora 3d engine yes. And with a fixed iso cam you can accomplish some great looks too. it´s also more flexible for an editor. Think about placing objects and vfx...etc. So the best of both worlds:)
I'd like to play an alternate story where (maybe through a wish spell) you go back in time and play as Sarevok and manage to succeed with your plans. But because destiny (the DM ^^) is a b****, in the very end all we be in vain, and nothing serious will have changed. (this way Forgotten Realms lore won't be affected)
I'd like to play an alternate story where (maybe through a wish spell) you go back in time and play as Sarevok and manage to succeed with your plans. But because destiny (the DM ^^) is a b****, in the very end all we be in vain, and nothing serious will have changed. (this way Forgotten Realms lore won't be affected)
As a long time fan of the series, although I am desperately hopeful that these enhanced editions sell well enough to warrant a true sequel I cannot help but wonder what form that might take. For me the ending of Throne of Bhaal was so satisfying I can't see the story picking up with the original player character. That's not to say it would be impossible, just that it would be a big challenge in storytelling. That said I would like a story that centers around the Bhaalspawn saga in someway.
There is also the power level question. By the time you reach the end of the saga you are so incredibly powerful it becomes tough to imagine decent plot lines that are both challenging, but also keep you grounded in the Forgotten Realms. I would like the opportunity to start a new PC's story, taking them and their party from humble beginnings at level 1 through to the Dizzying heights of epic levels.
*SPOILERS AHEAD*
Perhaps the story could centre around a descendant of the original PC, who discovers that Bhaal was playing a long term plot. Should his attempt to ressurect fail, as long one of his line survived the Bhaalspawn cycle would begin anew once there were sufficient descendants to ignite it. The focus of this story wouldn't be a simple rehash of the prior games, but rather a race against time to find a way to lift the curse of Bhaal's blood once and for all. Breaking it down into a simple three act structure it could work something like this:
Act I: Your character starts off his/her adventuring life in the shadow of a famous hero who travels the realms accomplishing great deeds, but it turns out this seemingly great hero has far more sinister motives. They want to restart the Bhaalspawn legacy and utilise their fame to seduce people in high positions, across many lands to hurry along this process and ensure that whole kingdoms will war should their children come of age and into their murderous heritage. You stop this villain in this act.
Act II: Despite earlier victories it is revealed that this enemy was one of a cabal, utilising many methods to herald the Bhaalspawn, and it may already be too late. Whilst coming into conflict with this cult the knowledge of Jon Irenicus needs to be sought out, in order to learn the secret of drawing and transferring the divine essence so that it can be cleansed and purified once and for all.
Act III: Despite succeeding in learning the ritual, the second Bhaalwar ignites, and you must race to collect the Bhaal taint in one place, and only through some great act of sacrifice (the antithesis of murder) can the curse be lifted once and for all...
Well, there's a thread already about Baldur's Gate 3, there i raised the option of a god storyline for gameplay, to occur in the multiverse with reflex on the prime also, well if anyone want to know more just check there:
But if my BG3 god storyline don't happens , a history of another bhaalspaw happening at the same time of the main protagonist history, but in a different place with diferent allies, enemies and motivations would be nice too. The end of BG3, or something to be near the end, could be a confrontation betwen this new charname with a pre-set charname based in BG1/BG2.
After all, in fact the main char in BG1/BG2 is an anomaly, the exception of a prophecy. BG3 could show what would happen if the original main char fail.
The idea above is just a raw of a good possibility.
I think the prequel is also a possibility. Oster confirmed his interest for the Time of Troubles. I wouldn't wonder if we were given role of a person who enters to be part of the Harpers along with Gorion, Khalid and Jaheira. There's a lot of background that we know about Gorion's adventure (spoilers : Firkraag's battle, the love story with the Bhaalspawn's mother, etc...) so it would definitely be a possibility.
Besides, there's still much we could learn about people like Khalid, or Jaheira for this matter. Harpers are elusive people. You never know when those pesky spy-like superheroes could have done something great without anyone witnessing :P
My Idea for a BG 3 would be to start over at level 1 as many have mentioned here already, plenty of cameos from the forgotten realms in general, but certainly from the earlier BG games. Go heavy on the NPC interaction, romance, friendships, allies and backstabbers galore.
Have the character deal with the legacy from the ToB ending, the creation of a new deity has got to produce plenty of interesting conflicts all over. As for the new protagonist, their glory could lie in actually driving the church to new heights, or trying to bring it down. Or perhaps simply profit form the divine power struggle.
Since the story for the Adventures of the Player Character is closed.. Why not making it in the kind of Player Character Offspring - The new Adventures, with some kind of interactive start where to choose which pairing had existed at the end.
What i do not want to see is that kind of story which we get presented in tv/cinemas so often recently.. The adventures of the Heroes Before all the mess - Prequels do suck bigtime!
Atleast i loved ToB + some small modding and such to make one self seem like a real GOD among men, eventually, being through what the player went through.
If i had to see a BG3 or so, it should be something similar. The player reaching godhood. Dont think i've seen something like that in any game. And even then, it would perfectly fit BG3 imo
I understand that 'to hit' bonuses are going to be flattened to the point where a 1st level character/monster has a decent chance to hit, say, a 20th level character. Instead, damage output will scale with level. The example (buried somewhere in the link to 5e mechanics on enworld) given was something like a mid to high level party will have difficulty with a dragon but an army of 1000+ 1st level warriors would be able to defeat them.
Damage output will be such that enemies that are much lower in level will be equivalent to the 4e 'minion'. That is, they will pose something of a threat but will be 'one hit kills'.
Ok. I'm guessing that 'vanilla' fighters will get higher damage output (with slightly better bonuses to attack) on melee and/or ranged attacks.
However--and I should reiterate that this is a shot in the dark--that they can trade this extra bonus--probably gained at each level--for a 'stamina point' and a special combat or non combat ability that one can spend that point on (perhaps similar to the ones posted in the link). The reason that I think the 'stamina' mechanic will be in there because post #28 gives an example ability that is in the playtest:
"Watchmen's Search (Level 3) You search thoroughly for anything of interest, leaving nothing unturned - you may make a big mess and meet disapproval by your more subtle friends, but you are sure thorough During a search you can spend 1 stamina to grant yourself and your allies advantage on all checks to find whatever you are looking for. This covers an area of up to 50 x 50 ft and up to 20 ft high, and requires 2d4+1 minutes. There are some drawbacks to this method - instead of advantage, you and your allies suffer disadvantage on all checks to detect or avoid a trap, and any trap attacks have advantage against you. If there is a doubt who would trigger a trap, it's you. You cannot make any stealth checks to escape notice (but your allies may be able to do so), and the fact that someone searched the room is evident afterwards and can generally not be undone"
Notice this line: "...you can spend 1 stamina to grant yourself..."
Now, I believe that the fighter will have the ability to trade this flat bonus at each level because the first post states "In the latest podcast [5:30] from Wizards the designers reveal that there will be a new fighter mechanic than allows a player to play a simple fighter or a complex fighter by "turning a dial". The feature is exclusive to fighters." and "That was one of the more intriguing parts of the podcasts, because they said that not only could you set the dial at creation, but you could adjust the dial as your character progressed, so you could start off with a simple fighter and gradually turn up the complexity as you leveled..."
Now, I don't know how 'retroactive' this mechanic might be. For example, if you've progressed 6 levels as a 'complex' fighter but start experiencing buyers regret if you can trade it all away for a simple damage/attack bonus. Post 3 seems to suggest that you can but I'm a little suspicious of that one. Not that I think the poster is being deceptive but it's not an exact quote nor is the poster specifically saying that they (WotC) said that. This makes me think that he is inferring (Though even if he is, he might be right. After all, assuming I'm right, I'm doing the same thing!)
I just tought about an idea for Baldur's gate 3. The dark lord Bane returns and wants to exterminate all other gods and godchilds so he can create a new dark era where all races worship and serve him. The main protagonist(you) is now the new lord of murder and hears rumors about Bane's return and starts forging alliances and prepares for a great war. He walks the land like a normal adventurer with his son (Viconia or Aerie's child),asks his old friends for help (for exaple:Minsc,Valygar,etc..). He also wages a war against the spider queen Lolth (that b*tch that poisons Viconia >:( ) so that he can avenge Viconia. Some other heroes from other Dungeons and dragons games appear to help him. During the great war he must kill all of Bane's servents so that he can weaken him ( For example: Tiamat-the 5 headed dragon). During his new adventure he must face many hard decisions to win this war.
So,what do you think of that? You have any other ideas?
what i think simply this all your idea for the backstory of it fall flat if we play a woman
Not an all bad concept. Over-all I tend to favour BG3 ideas that are a straight-on continuation of ToB, though it definitely seems like a difficult story to pull off compared with just starting from scratch with new characters and a new plot. The problem with the start-from-scratch approach is obviously that if you switch out the characters, switch out the story arc, change the ruleset and so on, you'll be making the finished product less and less likely to feel like a BG game - and it would be a shame if BG3 came out and in the end had little more than the name to connect it to its predecessors.
Some games handle this starting from scratch very well. Fallout and Fallout 2 come to mind; but it seems very risky. Fallout has an advantage in having a gameworld with a very unique and quirky feel to it; whereas having a D&D game set in the Forgotten Realms or even on the Sword Coast won't necessarily make it feel anything like BG.
For straight-on continuation, it's easy to see the problems with playing a canon-wrecking character that goes on to slay Tiamat and Lolth and clean out the Nine Hells, etc and generally has very few credible challenges left. Another approacah would be the power-strip scenario where you are severely reduced in capacity and will have to work back up again. This was used in games like God of War (and to some extent Mass Effect) and worked quite well as long as you could overlook how it was contrived pretty much solely for game-mechanical reasons.
Not an all bad concept. Over-all I tend to favour BG3 ideas that are a straight-on continuation of ToB, though it definitely seems like a difficult story to pull off compared with just starting from scratch with new characters and a new plot. The problem with the start-from-scratch approach is obviously that if you switch out the characters, switch out the story arc, change the ruleset and so on, you'll be making the finished product less and less likely to feel like a BG game - and it would be a shame if BG3 came out and in the end had little more than the name to connect it to its predecessors.
BG2 already didnt felt like BG1... And ToB didnt felt like BG1/BG2 at all - more like IWD. as long as you come up with a Good story and you keep the BG style - everything should be fine. Direct continuation is much more risky because you basicly try to revive the story that has long been ended - and it might look like an attempt to ride on BG1/BG2 success ( although you can say the same by just using the name BG3.. )
Not an all bad concept. Over-all I tend to favour BG3 ideas that are a straight-on continuation of ToB, though it definitely seems like a difficult story to pull off compared with just starting from scratch with new characters and a new plot. The problem with the start-from-scratch approach is obviously that if you switch out the characters, switch out the story arc, change the ruleset and so on, you'll be making the finished product less and less likely to feel like a BG game - and it would be a shame if BG3 came out and in the end had little more than the name to connect it to its predecessors.
BG2 already didnt felt like BG1... And ToB didnt felt like BG1/BG2 at all - more like IWD. as long as you come up with a Good story and you keep the BG style - everything should be fine. Direct continuation is much more risky because you basicly try to revive the story that has long been ended - and it might look like an attempt to ride on BG1/BG2 success ( although you can say the same by just using the name BG3.. )
exactelly that's a bit why i don,t see anyway to make a BG3 game
Not an all bad concept. Over-all I tend to favour BG3 ideas that are a straight-on continuation of ToB, though it definitely seems like a difficult story to pull off compared with just starting from scratch with new characters and a new plot. The problem with the start-from-scratch approach is obviously that if you switch out the characters, switch out the story arc, change the ruleset and so on, you'll be making the finished product less and less likely to feel like a BG game - and it would be a shame if BG3 came out and in the end had little more than the name to connect it to its predecessors.
BG2 already didnt felt like BG1... And ToB didnt felt like BG1/BG2 at all - more like IWD. as long as you come up with a Good story and you keep the BG style - everything should be fine. Direct continuation is much more risky because you basicly try to revive the story that has long been ended - and it might look like an attempt to ride on BG1/BG2 success ( although you can say the same by just using the name BG3.. )
exactelly that's a bit why i don,t see anyway to make a BG3 game
I would be perfectly fine if they didn't use the Baldur's Gate name at all in a new game. If the story was original and gameplay was similar to the BG 1/2, then I don't see any reason why it matters if it has the name or not (I know the Baldur's Gate name would help sell the game).
Not an all bad concept. Over-all I tend to favour BG3 ideas that are a straight-on continuation of ToB, though it definitely seems like a difficult story to pull off compared with just starting from scratch with new characters and a new plot. The problem with the start-from-scratch approach is obviously that if you switch out the characters, switch out the story arc, change the ruleset and so on, you'll be making the finished product less and less likely to feel like a BG game - and it would be a shame if BG3 came out and in the end had little more than the name to connect it to its predecessors.
BG2 already didnt felt like BG1... And ToB didnt felt like BG1/BG2 at all - more like IWD. as long as you come up with a Good story and you keep the BG style - everything should be fine. Direct continuation is much more risky because you basicly try to revive the story that has long been ended - and it might look like an attempt to ride on BG1/BG2 success ( although you can say the same by just using the name BG3.. )
exactelly that's a bit why i don,t see anyway to make a BG3 game
I would be perfectly fine if they didn't use the Baldur's Gate name at all in a new game. If the story was original and gameplay was similar to the BG 1/2, then I don't see any reason why it matters if it has the name or not (I know the Baldur's Gate name would help sell the game).
Not an all bad concept. Over-all I tend to favour BG3 ideas that are a straight-on continuation of ToB, though it definitely seems like a difficult story to pull off compared with just starting from scratch with new characters and a new plot. The problem with the start-from-scratch approach is obviously that if you switch out the characters, switch out the story arc, change the ruleset and so on, you'll be making the finished product less and less likely to feel like a BG game - and it would be a shame if BG3 came out and in the end had little more than the name to connect it to its predecessors.
BG2 already didnt felt like BG1... And ToB didnt felt like BG1/BG2 at all - more like IWD. as long as you come up with a Good story and you keep the BG style - everything should be fine. Direct continuation is much more risky because you basicly try to revive the story that has long been ended - and it might look like an attempt to ride on BG1/BG2 success ( although you can say the same by just using the name BG3.. )
BG2 didn't have the same mechanics (or originally, graphics) that BG1 did, but you did continue your storyline (and that of many other characters from BG1), and the games were certainly connected in a whole lot of ways. ToB connects to them both and brought some improvements, but lacks in other areas instead. I agree that direct continuation is risky, but in my opinion it's worth it. Making an unrelated BG3 is risky as well, as using the infinity engine and having it take place in FR isn't exactly a guarantee that it will feel like BG. It might as well not even be called BG3, as you say, as it's about something different - much like NWN or DAO.
@tanthalas are you going to give me a reason why you don't agree? In what way is a plot about bane in bg3 the same thing as a discussion about how 5e rules will translate to bg 3?
at the very least you should explain why the burden of proof is on me because it is NOT obvious.
I think I get it @tanthalas. You think I insulted you. I actually have a lot of respect for rorty and his "disciples". Philosophers tend to poke fun at each other. I suppose you develop a thick, insensitive skin after a while as a survival mechanism that can be off putting in other domains.
(edit: to give you an idea let me quote a gent named jerry fodor from his language of thought 2: "...I report with considerable pride that a very well known philosopher of mind has chosen (an earlier work), among all the books published in the last fifty years as the one he would most like to see burned. It's the nicest thing anybody ever said about my work.")
I apologize for my insensitivity. I really didn't mean to offend
Comments
" My ideal party-based RPG'S is D&D, isometric and a 2D/3D mix. Great characters, voice acting on an epic story, set in an open world"
If I recall right in one of the earlier (Im just too tired to search it ) post about BG3 they said it will be with new engine and 3D, I belive it will eventually be 2D/3D mix, as Trent said, At least I hope so! its the best combination
So the best of both worlds:)
Whatever though, i just want us to actually confirm BG3 eventually, we can talk about he engine then :P
There is also the power level question. By the time you reach the end of the saga you are so incredibly powerful it becomes tough to imagine decent plot lines that are both challenging, but also keep you grounded in the Forgotten Realms. I would like the opportunity to start a new PC's story, taking them and their party from humble beginnings at level 1 through to the Dizzying heights of epic levels.
*SPOILERS AHEAD*
Perhaps the story could centre around a descendant of the original PC, who discovers that Bhaal was playing a long term plot. Should his attempt to ressurect fail, as long one of his line survived the Bhaalspawn cycle would begin anew once there were sufficient descendants to ignite it. The focus of this story wouldn't be a simple rehash of the prior games, but rather a race against time to find a way to lift the curse of Bhaal's blood once and for all. Breaking it down into a simple three act structure it could work something like this:
Act I: Your character starts off his/her adventuring life in the shadow of a famous hero who travels the realms accomplishing great deeds, but it turns out this seemingly great hero has far more sinister motives. They want to restart the Bhaalspawn legacy and utilise their fame to seduce people in high positions, across many lands to hurry along this process and ensure that whole kingdoms will war should their children come of age and into their murderous heritage. You stop this villain in this act.
Act II: Despite earlier victories it is revealed that this enemy was one of a cabal, utilising many methods to herald the Bhaalspawn, and it may already be too late. Whilst coming into conflict with this cult the knowledge of Jon Irenicus needs to be sought out, in order to learn the secret of drawing and transferring the divine essence so that it can be cleansed and purified once and for all.
Act III: Despite succeeding in learning the ritual, the second Bhaalwar ignites, and you must race to collect the Bhaal taint in one place, and only through some great act of sacrifice (the antithesis of murder) can the curse be lifted once and for all...
http://forum.baldursgate.com/discussion/928/baldurs-gate-3-d/p1
But if my BG3 god storyline don't happens
After all, in fact the main char in BG1/BG2 is an anomaly, the exception of a prophecy. BG3 could show what would happen if the original main char fail.
The idea above is just a raw of a good possibility.
Besides, there's still much we could learn about people like Khalid, or Jaheira for this matter. Harpers are elusive people. You never know when those pesky spy-like superheroes could have done something great without anyone witnessing :P
Have the character deal with the legacy from the ToB ending, the creation of a new deity has got to produce plenty of interesting conflicts all over. As for the new protagonist, their glory could lie in actually driving the church to new heights, or trying to bring it down. Or perhaps simply profit form the divine power struggle.
I'm not sure if they could make a story about a new deity. The canon ending in the Forgotten Realms is that the PC didn't ascend to godhood.
What i do not want to see is that kind of story which we get presented in tv/cinemas so often recently.. The adventures of the Heroes Before all the mess - Prequels do suck bigtime!
Atleast i loved ToB + some small modding and such to make one self seem like a real GOD among men, eventually, being through what the player went through.
If i had to see a BG3 or so, it should be something similar. The player reaching godhood. Dont think i've seen something like that in any game. And even then, it would perfectly fit BG3 imo
But first a little background:
I understand that 'to hit' bonuses are going to be flattened to the point where a 1st level character/monster has a decent chance to hit, say, a 20th level character. Instead, damage output will scale with level. The example (buried somewhere in the link to 5e mechanics on enworld) given was something like a mid to high level party will have difficulty with a dragon but an army of 1000+ 1st level warriors would be able to defeat them.
Damage output will be such that enemies that are much lower in level will be equivalent to the 4e 'minion'. That is, they will pose something of a threat but will be 'one hit kills'.
Ok. I'm guessing that 'vanilla' fighters will get higher damage output (with slightly better bonuses to attack) on melee and/or ranged attacks.
However--and I should reiterate that this is a shot in the dark--that they can trade this extra bonus--probably gained at each level--for a 'stamina point' and a special combat or non combat ability that one can spend that point on (perhaps similar to the ones posted in the link). The reason that I think the 'stamina' mechanic will be in there because post #28 gives an example ability that is in the playtest:
"Watchmen's Search (Level 3)
You search thoroughly for anything of interest, leaving nothing unturned - you may make a big mess and meet disapproval by your more subtle friends, but you are sure thorough
During a search you can spend 1 stamina to grant yourself and your allies advantage on all checks to find whatever you are looking for. This covers an area of up to 50 x 50 ft and up to 20 ft high, and requires 2d4+1 minutes. There are some drawbacks to this method - instead of advantage, you and your allies suffer disadvantage on all checks to detect or avoid a trap, and any trap attacks have advantage against you. If there is a doubt who would trigger a trap, it's you. You cannot make any stealth checks to escape notice (but your allies may be able to do so), and the fact that someone searched the room is evident afterwards and can generally not be undone"
Notice this line: "...you can spend 1 stamina to grant yourself..."
Now, I believe that the fighter will have the ability to trade this flat bonus at each level because the first post states "In the latest podcast [5:30] from Wizards the designers reveal that there will be a new fighter mechanic than allows a player to play a simple fighter or a complex fighter by "turning a dial". The feature is exclusive to fighters." and "That was one of the more intriguing parts of the podcasts, because they said that not only could you set the dial at creation, but you could adjust the dial as your character progressed, so you could start off with a simple fighter and gradually turn up the complexity as you leveled..."
Now, I don't know how 'retroactive' this mechanic might be. For example, if you've progressed 6 levels as a 'complex' fighter but start experiencing buyers regret if you can trade it all away for a simple damage/attack bonus. Post 3 seems to suggest that you can but I'm a little suspicious of that one. Not that I think the poster is being deceptive but it's not an exact quote nor is the poster specifically saying that they (WotC) said that. This makes me think that he is inferring (Though even if he is, he might be right. After all, assuming I'm right, I'm doing the same thing!)
Some games handle this starting from scratch very well. Fallout and Fallout 2 come to mind; but it seems very risky. Fallout has an advantage in having a gameworld with a very unique and quirky feel to it; whereas having a D&D game set in the Forgotten Realms or even on the Sword Coast won't necessarily make it feel anything like BG.
For straight-on continuation, it's easy to see the problems with playing a canon-wrecking character that goes on to slay Tiamat and Lolth and clean out the Nine Hells, etc and generally has very few credible challenges left. Another approacah would be the power-strip scenario where you are severely reduced in capacity and will have to work back up again. This was used in games like God of War (and to some extent Mass Effect) and worked quite well as long as you could overlook how it was contrived pretty much solely for game-mechanical reasons.
EDIT: I can't tell you how happy I'll be if somebody--anybody--gets that joke (even if they don't think it's funny).
Making an unrelated BG3 is risky as well, as using the infinity engine and having it take place in FR isn't exactly a guarantee that it will feel like BG. It might as well not even be called BG3, as you say, as it's about something different - much like NWN or DAO.
I disagree about the threads being that different.
at the very least you should explain why the burden of proof is on me because it is NOT obvious.
I merged the threads because they were both about a possible BG3.
EDIT: Hmm, now that I'm looking at this, its possible that I merged the wrong threads.
EDIT2: Actually... I don't even remember merging these. >_>
(edit: to give you an idea let me quote a gent named jerry fodor from his language of thought 2: "...I report with considerable pride that a very well known philosopher of mind has chosen (an earlier work), among all the books published in the last fifty years as the one he would most like to see burned. It's the nicest thing anybody ever said about my work.")
I apologize for my insensitivity. I really didn't mean to offend