"be happy with what you believe, i stand by my position and nothing said here yet changed that"
If you want to think i'm wrong, uncoherent, flamer or any other adjective, well be my guest to do that. Seizing the opportunity with @LadyRhian being in the discussion, know that i'm not stubborn and i will change my mind if i gather enough points to make me re-think an issue. This just didn't happened yet here.
I don't think people (at least myself and a few others) are trying to 'Change your opinion' so much as get you to understand the difference between opinion and fact. You have expressed opinions and that is perfectly great. You are entitled to those opinions. But when you present your opinions as facts and then tell people that they won't sway your opinion 'Because they are facts', you end up looking rather ill-informed.
You are right in that you are entitled to your "Objective (which is totally inappropriate in the context of your statement) right to your opinion". Better put, you are entitled to your opinion. And no one is saying that your OPINION need change. We are merely attempting to get you to understand that your use of the words "Objective" and "fact" are incorrect in the context of your statements.
It is not a fact that 3E is better than 2E (nor even that 2E is better than 3E). it is an opinion. And your right to have an opinion on the subject in no way makes anything a fact other than to say that it is a fact that you have an opinion.
Now, as to subjective vs. objective quality, what you're saying is precisely what I'm arguing isn't true. I'm arguing that things like quality of acting are objective facts that are subject to subjective variance when interpreted.
If quality of acting was an objective measurement then you would be able to tell me what unit it is measured in. You'd be able to tell me exactly how many units Orson Wells scored when he acted in Citizen Kane, and be able to compare that to how many units Shia LaBeouf scored in Transformers. However there is no such unit of measurement.
Height is an example of an objective measure. It can be measured in a variety of units, for example, metres. And it is possible to measure exactly how tall each and every person is.
Acting quality is not an objective measure. Nor is film quality. And nor is AD&D rule quality.
@Kamuizin You claim that the fact that the rules are better is also WOTC's opinion. I am not contractually required to parrot the opinion of a company as my own. Fine that you agree with WOTC, but I do not. That does not make my opinion lesser somehow. If a great number of people believe a foolish thing to be true, the number of people believing in it does not make it any less a foolish thing. It simply makes it popular to believe this foolish thing is true. Nor does it matter what companies think it to be true. It's still merely an opinion.
And for those arguing that by testing their game against and through public opinion somehow made the 3e rules better, one can also argue how you can destroy something by the same route as well, watering down what made your product/game great in the first place. As people have found out- they ask people what kind of coffee they like and people answer "A rich, dark roast". But when it comes to actual taste tests- people prefer a lighter, milkier roast instead. Why? "A Rich, Dark Roast" sounds better, but it's not their actual preference- but saying "Rich, Dark Roast" (which actually makes the coffee less caffeinated- longer roasting burns out more of the caffeine) makes them sound more sophisticated. I'm not saying that's what is happening here, but it's true that a lot of people play 3e and 4e. Maybe it makes them sound like they are a "truer" fan to say they like it, because that's what D&D *is* nowadays. Going with the crowd to be popular. (Not that I am leveling that charge at anyone, but saying it can go a ways into explaining why so many people say they like something.)
Added new components for EE games: Remove Summoning Cap for Regular Summons, Remove Racial Restrictions for Classes, Remove Racial Restrictions for Kits, and Alter Dual/Multiclass Restrictions
How's the removal of racial restrictions going to work? Will Mazzy get an update in BG2EE then? Otherwise...
Mazzy: Well met, brave lord. I am Mazzy and as near to a paladin as a halfling can be
Charname: I'm an actual halfling paladin, well...cavalier to be super accurate
the more I read this thread, the more I find myself leaning towards 1e/2e AD&D instead of 3e. I was going to repurchase 3e books, but now I'm not sure =/
Both 1E and 2E books have recently been reissued by WotC.
Happy day!!!!
Although I bet the Deities and Demi-gods book doesn't have the chapter on Elric the way mine does. :-P
Didn't an early edition have Cthulhu also? And of course they've gone back and forth with the Tolkien estate. We've had Hobbits/Halflings and Ents/Tree-Ents and a few other changes. Funny stuff.
It does give me a vague hope that they might authorize legacy products at some point, like if someone ever did a new Infinity Engine or Gold Box game.
Both 1E and 2E books have recently been reissued by WotC.
Well it's the business of a business to make money...
But I suspect their marketing gurus realized the existing inventory of the older books was shrinking and battered (I know I sure was happy to have some 2E books that are wholly intact again!) and plenty of veteran gamers were ready to refresh their libraries!
Both 1E and 2E books have recently been reissued by WotC.
Well it's the business of a business to make money...
But I suspect their marketing gurus realized the existing inventory of the older books was shrinking and battered (I know I sure was happy to have some 2E books that are wholly intact again!) and plenty of veteran gamers were ready to refresh their libraries!
Also, they've had this big gap where they haven't been publishing new 4e books while they've been doing the playtest of Next, so they need something to keep a steady cash flow.
I'm glad wotc are coming their senses. 3, 4, and 5 edition are too similar to other gaming systems/games.
I think that was the point. They wanted something that would (a) be approachable by new audiences, (b) be compatible with the CRPG crowd, (c) be generic enough so that they could draw in more casual gamers.
I'm not sure if they are 'coming to their senses' so much as as was indicated, realizing that they had a marketable product that didn't require new development and resources that they were using to focus on Next. Its a win on their end. All they need to do is take existing product and send to the publishers and turn it into cash.
In any event, hopefully it will present enough of a Renaissance for 2nd Ed such that any potential BG3 could use some version of that rule set.
Actually according to that same book, Dwarves can be Skald, Gnomes/Halflings can be Jesters, and Elves can be Blades. So there's already kits in-game allowed by the rules as written, and really wouldn't need other kits added.
@ZanathKariashi I completely forgot about that. The way the kits are assigned in BG2 vanilla gives the impression that race-class restrictions are really harsh and rigid but there are some flexibility like you mentioned.
The only cavaet is the part where Dwarf and Halfling bards can't use spells (they basically permanently devote each available spell slot to a single spell of that level that grants them a +4 save bonus vs that spell, or allows a save at -4 if no save is normally allowed.
And gnome bards basically being illusionists, except they don't get 1 extra spell slot per level, they just get the +1/-1 save bonus/penalty to vs/to illusion spells, and can't learn necro, evo, or abjuration.
I think the restrictions make more sense in tabletop. I know I've played in far too many 3rd edition games where everyone was playing a bird person/golem/Drow. It's a bit rediculous, and takes away any sense of immersion for me. However in a one player game like BG it makes less sense, the player character should stand out and be different than the normal person.
As far as popularity of editions, I feel it's simply whatever edition you grew up playing that you tend to love the best. To be honest any of them can be fun with a good group and DM, Except 4th edition it's lame (kidding)
A lot of it's part of the setting. It's part of the Forgotten Realms and similar situation. Dwarves don't become mages. They make up their bonuses by a dexterity cap, and a penalty to charisma. Gnomes are aligned to be illusionists the restriction makes up for the +1 intelligence bonus Humans were the central race, so opportunities available to them were not often to others. Plus, they didn't have the penalties. Half elves had a lot of stigmas.
Half orcs not being able to be mages doesn't make much sense, when there're orc mages in the game. Half orcs would hardly be allowed in most areas. A lot of the class restrictions don't have much criteria to them. It would be nice if the kits could be multiclass, or dualclass.
opinions are like buttholes, everyone has one and no one's is better than another.
Where's mine? And what does it look like.
I gave agreement to LadyRhian, because (s)he had the best post. I like to keep the coffee on the burner until it's almost a goo. I'm not sure if that's hard roast, but it seems quite potent.
@LadyRhian Will you make a game were there's roleplaying, and not all about combat, where you could be a more regular stat character, without rapid experience level allotment?
@ZanathKariashi Elven Fighter/Magicusers could be Bladesingers, which was different than a Blade.
@Delvarian I also think there should be things the PC should be able to NOT do, like be an Avariel Cleric/Mage. Some of the characters in both games have abilities the CHARNAME does not, like Eldoth being able to make poison arrows- I think this keeps the flavor of certain NPCs that allowing the CHARNAME to be or do anything does not.
@DancingBugbear "Dark Roast" refers to the beans themselves. Before you even brew the coffee, that is set in stone- it's not how long the coffee sits on the burner after it's brewed. Sorry. And yes, I'd love to do a strict roleplaying module- but combat is a large part of the game. And since I use the BG NPCs for characters, it would only be testing how well someone can channel the characters from the game. I'd love to do original characters, but then, how do we do rolls for stats and whatnot? It's kinda impractical at the moment- but let me think on it.
@LadyRhian I'd thought by milky, you suggested that it taste like something that has milk in it. After you can climb to the berry bush, yourself, I don't need inclusion of milk. It's more like a text adventure sort of program. Non weapon proficiency roles would be a major factor in it. Check Micropros Darklands, and Iron Tower Studios Age of Decadence. "A" rank programs, where this goes under the pass/fail style. Without a lot of content, that is a broad ranging encompassing campaign, it would take a multi activity sort of setting, with an open-world style environment.
I'll just toss a wildly out there opinion: the entire idea of "classes" is inherently terrible, restricts roleplaying, doesn't match fictional portrayals or any coherent narrative, and worst of all, leads to headache-inducing necessity of planning "builds" that resemble complex chemistry equations (something that was even worse in the generally more mechanically coherent 3e). Faugh and be done with them, a primitive game mechanic for a barbarous past.
Oh, don't get me wrong, I totally agree that this stuff is subjective, and some people like classes (I thought there was some interesting justifications for racial restrictions, but they'd work much better in a narrative than in a RPG where you're expected to play these non-human-thinking critters) and all power to you. I just dearly wish BG (and Planescape Torment, sort of) weren't hampered by being tied to the mechanics of Dungeons & Dragons. And I've played every version of D&D from the original basic se to 3.5 (if only because it's often hard to find other games on a regular basis), so I'm not knocking what I haven't tried. You are all entitled to like things I don't, though.
(Except for THAC0. That is an objectively bad mechanic, and I'm pretty sure you're an objectively bad person if you like it. A fun exercise I had to do recently: explain THAC0 to someone who has never played a PNP RPG before. Try it, it's fun! The looks you get are very telling.)
I'll just toss a wildly out there opinion: the entire idea of "classes" is inherently terrible, restricts roleplaying, doesn't match fictional portrayals or any coherent narrative, and worst of all, leads to headache-inducing necessity of planning "builds" that resemble complex chemistry equations (something that was even worse in the generally more mechanically coherent 3e). Faugh and be done with them, a primitive game mechanic for a barbarous past.
Well said. Throw down the oppressive class system, rise up for a better tomorrow, a tomorrow with no classes
It's not even really thac0, it's the inconsistent terminology as to when something is good and something is bad.
Even once you know the system, you STILL have to pay attention to the writing or you get stuff like the Berserker's Enrage giving a bonus to AC, when it's supposed to be a penalty. (the enrage AND winded both have an AC penalty. The enrage because they're fighting without regard for their safety and the winded because they're too tired to defend as effectively after the rage has ended).
And no, build planning isn't required in 2nd edition. Unlike 3rd which can become impossible if you $%#^ up your character build, 2nd's level of power stays more reasonable for the majority of monsters and doesn't require any special planning, aside from making sure the gear/spells you brought are applicable to the task, aside from stuff like Arch-devils or Demi-liches, which aren't things you typically expect to fight until maximum or epic levels anyway.
(Demi-liches though are an odd case, as 3-6 lvl 5 mages casting Shatter (deals double damage to Demi-iches) could potentially kill one in a single round. Though an Awakened Demi-lich is nearly impossible to defeat even for a high level party because they retain their minds and all their spell-casting powers + the demi-lich benefits vs the common demi-lich that just spams Devour the soul and Wail of the banshee until it or everything else is dead)
Even in BG, that doesn't change at all. (I've nerfed quite a few things in my own game back to their PnP levels of power, and play with random rolls, no rest until fatigued, and only rest in an inn. Not a single ounce of theorycrafting is required (I've even had one of my friends playthrough using my version and restrictions and they did with no more difficulty then the typical first-time BG player. Theorycrafting is an utter waste of time, because all it does is give your character more wasted overkill. 2nd edition assumes characters with 12-16 stats, and the monsters are stated accordingly, so using power-built characters or the overpower crap BG implemented utterly ruins the game because it's not meant for that sort of thing.
Wow ayiekie, okay apart from obvious that we'll need fire or acid to take this sucker down, I do have to point out that there is virtually no "build" issues at all with 2E. The classes define their own skills apart from weapon proficiencies. In PNP you might add non- weapon proficiencies, but those have more to do with flavor and role-playing function than actual game mechanics.
I'm not trolling, I honestly dislike class-based systems. But as I said, you don't have to like what I like.
That being said, y'all are not entirely correct about builds being irrelevant to 2e. To name one obvious example, dual-classing requires to you to plan ahead for what the best level is to drop thief or whatever, and then gimp your character for an extraordinary length of time until suddenly for no good reason you have your old abilities back. But you can never ever try to get better at being a thief again, because (mumblemumblemumble), so pick that level with care!
Prestige classes did make the whole thing ridiculous, though, no doubt.
Because you're thinking like a power gamer...none of that matters...Dual-classing is NOT the primary perk of humans...unlimited advancement and the ability to be any class is..dual-classing is just a little bit of icing on the cake that getting lucky with rolls or stats gained while adventuring such as via Wishes or stat manuals can allow to happen. Especially since PnP doesn't fudge stat rolls or allow you to move points around like BG does. I've almost never been able to dual-class since I started playing with random rolls, rarely thing'll line up so I can use stat-manuals/Lum to allow it, but it's pretty rare.
And that of itself is a pretty annoying thing as most kits only really come into their real power at levels higher then you typically dual-class.
Where as multi-classing is the opposite for demi-humans. MC is good if you got HORRIBLE stat rolls since the requirements are the same as being that class normally (usually just 9's for fighter/thief/mage/cleric), since you wouldn't be able to surpass your racial caps anyway, while exceptionally gifted single-class characters can go up to 4 levels over that cap, especially handy for casters.
And you never lose your abilities, you simply gain no xp for encounters/challenges you rely on them, unless you're more proficient in your new profession and can combine their skills without issue. But due to the strain of maintaining multiple skill sets, with your inferior human brain, you can only advance as your newer class.
In short...there's no reason to plan ahead, even for dual-classing, since it's probably not going to matter in the long run WHAT level you dualed at.
Comments
You are right in that you are entitled to your "Objective (which is totally inappropriate in the context of your statement) right to your opinion". Better put, you are entitled to your opinion. And no one is saying that your OPINION need change. We are merely attempting to get you to understand that your use of the words "Objective" and "fact" are incorrect in the context of your statements.
It is not a fact that 3E is better than 2E (nor even that 2E is better than 3E). it is an opinion. And your right to have an opinion on the subject in no way makes anything a fact other than to say that it is a fact that you have an opinion.
Height is an example of an objective measure. It can be measured in a variety of units, for example, metres. And it is possible to measure exactly how tall each and every person is.
Acting quality is not an objective measure. Nor is film quality. And nor is AD&D rule quality.
@Kamuizin You claim that the fact that the rules are better is also WOTC's opinion. I am not contractually required to parrot the opinion of a company as my own. Fine that you agree with WOTC, but I do not. That does not make my opinion lesser somehow. If a great number of people believe a foolish thing to be true, the number of people believing in it does not make it any less a foolish thing. It simply makes it popular to believe this foolish thing is true. Nor does it matter what companies think it to be true. It's still merely an opinion.
And for those arguing that by testing their game against and through public opinion somehow made the 3e rules better, one can also argue how you can destroy something by the same route as well, watering down what made your product/game great in the first place. As people have found out- they ask people what kind of coffee they like and people answer "A rich, dark roast". But when it comes to actual taste tests- people prefer a lighter, milkier roast instead. Why? "A Rich, Dark Roast" sounds better, but it's not their actual preference- but saying "Rich, Dark Roast" (which actually makes the coffee less caffeinated- longer roasting burns out more of the caffeine) makes them sound more sophisticated. I'm not saying that's what is happening here, but it's true that a lot of people play 3e and 4e. Maybe it makes them sound like they are a "truer" fan to say they like it, because that's what D&D *is* nowadays. Going with the crowd to be popular. (Not that I am leveling that charge at anyone, but saying it can go a ways into explaining why so many people say they like something.)
Mazzy: Well met, brave lord. I am Mazzy and as near to a paladin as a halfling can be
Charname: I'm an actual halfling paladin, well...cavalier to be super accurate
Mazzy: Whaaaaa?
Although I bet the Deities and Demi-gods book doesn't have the chapter on Elric the way mine does. :-P
It does give me a vague hope that they might authorize legacy products at some point, like if someone ever did a new Infinity Engine or Gold Box game.
But I suspect their marketing gurus realized the existing inventory of the older books was shrinking and battered (I know I sure was happy to have some 2E books that are wholly intact again!) and plenty of veteran gamers were ready to refresh their libraries!
I'm not sure if they are 'coming to their senses' so much as as was indicated, realizing that they had a marketable product that didn't require new development and resources that they were using to focus on Next. Its a win on their end. All they need to do is take existing product and send to the publishers and turn it into cash.
In any event, hopefully it will present enough of a Renaissance for 2nd Ed such that any potential BG3 could use some version of that rule set.
Actually according to that same book, Dwarves can be Skald, Gnomes/Halflings can be Jesters, and Elves can be Blades. So there's already kits in-game allowed by the rules as written, and really wouldn't need other kits added.
And gnome bards basically being illusionists, except they don't get 1 extra spell slot per level, they just get the +1/-1 save bonus/penalty to vs/to illusion spells, and can't learn necro, evo, or abjuration.
However in a one player game like BG it makes less sense, the player character should stand out and be different than the normal person.
As far as popularity of editions, I feel it's simply whatever edition you grew up playing that you tend to love the best. To be honest any of them can be fun with a good group and DM, Except 4th edition it's lame (kidding)
Dwarves don't become mages.
They make up their bonuses by a dexterity cap, and a penalty to charisma.
Gnomes are aligned to be illusionists
the restriction makes up for the +1 intelligence bonus
Humans were the central race, so opportunities available to them were not often to others. Plus, they didn't have the penalties. Half elves had a lot of stigmas.
Half orcs not being able to be mages doesn't make much sense, when there're orc mages in the game. Half orcs would hardly be allowed in most areas.
A lot of the class restrictions don't have much criteria to them.
It would be nice if the kits could be multiclass, or dualclass. Where's mine? And what does it look like.
I gave agreement to LadyRhian, because (s)he had the best post. I like to keep the coffee on the burner until it's almost a goo. I'm not sure if that's hard roast, but it seems quite potent.
@LadyRhian Will you make a game were there's roleplaying, and not all about combat, where you could be a more regular stat character, without rapid experience level allotment?
@Delvarian I also think there should be things the PC should be able to NOT do, like be an Avariel Cleric/Mage. Some of the characters in both games have abilities the CHARNAME does not, like Eldoth being able to make poison arrows- I think this keeps the flavor of certain NPCs that allowing the CHARNAME to be or do anything does not.
@DancingBugbear "Dark Roast" refers to the beans themselves. Before you even brew the coffee, that is set in stone- it's not how long the coffee sits on the burner after it's brewed. Sorry. And yes, I'd love to do a strict roleplaying module- but combat is a large part of the game. And since I use the BG NPCs for characters, it would only be testing how well someone can channel the characters from the game. I'd love to do original characters, but then, how do we do rolls for stats and whatnot? It's kinda impractical at the moment- but let me think on it.
Oh, don't get me wrong, I totally agree that this stuff is subjective, and some people like classes (I thought there was some interesting justifications for racial restrictions, but they'd work much better in a narrative than in a RPG where you're expected to play these non-human-thinking critters) and all power to you. I just dearly wish BG (and Planescape Torment, sort of) weren't hampered by being tied to the mechanics of Dungeons & Dragons. And I've played every version of D&D from the original basic se to 3.5 (if only because it's often hard to find other games on a regular basis), so I'm not knocking what I haven't tried. You are all entitled to like things I don't, though.
(Except for THAC0. That is an objectively bad mechanic, and I'm pretty sure you're an objectively bad person if you like it. A fun exercise I had to do recently: explain THAC0 to someone who has never played a PNP RPG before. Try it, it's fun! The looks you get are very telling.)
Even once you know the system, you STILL have to pay attention to the writing or you get stuff like the Berserker's Enrage giving a bonus to AC, when it's supposed to be a penalty. (the enrage AND winded both have an AC penalty. The enrage because they're fighting without regard for their safety and the winded because they're too tired to defend as effectively after the rage has ended).
And no, build planning isn't required in 2nd edition. Unlike 3rd which can become impossible if you $%#^ up your character build, 2nd's level of power stays more reasonable for the majority of monsters and doesn't require any special planning, aside from making sure the gear/spells you brought are applicable to the task, aside from stuff like Arch-devils or Demi-liches, which aren't things you typically expect to fight until maximum or epic levels anyway.
(Demi-liches though are an odd case, as 3-6 lvl 5 mages casting Shatter (deals double damage to Demi-iches) could potentially kill one in a single round. Though an Awakened Demi-lich is nearly impossible to defeat even for a high level party because they retain their minds and all their spell-casting powers + the demi-lich benefits vs the common demi-lich that just spams Devour the soul and Wail of the banshee until it or everything else is dead)
Even in BG, that doesn't change at all. (I've nerfed quite a few things in my own game back to their PnP levels of power, and play with random rolls, no rest until fatigued, and only rest in an inn. Not a single ounce of theorycrafting is required (I've even had one of my friends playthrough using my version and restrictions and they did with no more difficulty then the typical first-time BG player. Theorycrafting is an utter waste of time, because all it does is give your character more wasted overkill. 2nd edition assumes characters with 12-16 stats, and the monsters are stated accordingly, so using power-built characters or the overpower crap BG implemented utterly ruins the game because it's not meant for that sort of thing.
That being said, y'all are not entirely correct about builds being irrelevant to 2e. To name one obvious example, dual-classing requires to you to plan ahead for what the best level is to drop thief or whatever, and then gimp your character for an extraordinary length of time until suddenly for no good reason you have your old abilities back. But you can never ever try to get better at being a thief again, because (mumblemumblemumble), so pick that level with care!
Prestige classes did make the whole thing ridiculous, though, no doubt.
And that of itself is a pretty annoying thing as most kits only really come into their real power at levels higher then you typically dual-class.
Where as multi-classing is the opposite for demi-humans. MC is good if you got HORRIBLE stat rolls since the requirements are the same as being that class normally (usually just 9's for fighter/thief/mage/cleric), since you wouldn't be able to surpass your racial caps anyway, while exceptionally gifted single-class characters can go up to 4 levels over that cap, especially handy for casters.
And you never lose your abilities, you simply gain no xp for encounters/challenges you rely on them, unless you're more proficient in your new profession and can combine their skills without issue. But due to the strain of maintaining multiple skill sets, with your inferior human brain, you can only advance as your newer class.
In short...there's no reason to plan ahead, even for dual-classing, since it's probably not going to matter in the long run WHAT level you dualed at.