Do you want BG3 to use the new 5th edition rules?

wariisop

Since it seems like the 5th edition is going to be a mix of 4E rules and 2E rules, do you want BG3 to use 5th Edition? Also, do you want secret quest from book series like Myth Drannor, or even Cormanthor time jump before when the city first changed its name?

Lastly, how many classes do you want, every class they can cram, even Drow, Aasimar, or even Half-Dragon Kin(just a thought since I saw a cool on in IWD 2)?

Schneidend

I haven't played 5E since the first round of playtesting, but I would much rather have a 4E game regardless of whether they fixed the many things I didn't like about "Next." Still, I'd like a change of pace from 2E, so if the latest edition must be used, I'll be okay.

Wierdoom

If they must use a different version of the rules, I personally would prefer 3.5; Next/5th is looking like a bit of a trainwreck if the playtest documents are any indication.

Felspawn

personally i'd prefer 3.5 but i cant imagine Wizards of the Coast signing off on a new BG game with anything but their newest ruleset

pigfly83

We can use the 5E for a new game , but do not use it in BG3 , the story of charname had been a legend in TOB .

jackjack

In a word, no.

Thrasymachus

*Anything* but 4e! Monopoly rules would be better than 4e.

3e/PF would be 'okay' though not great. (NWN and IWD2 are fine, but they lack the magic of BG, BG2, and IWD.)

BG to me is AD&D. Anything else seems inappropriate. If 5e has enough AD&D flavour, however, I might be able to live with that.

The_Guilty_Party

Anything but 3(.x). Never liked that edition. I'd say keep it 2nd, as it is now, but if you really must change, go all the way and make it the latest.

mlnevese

There is no way Hasbro would license a game that does not use the latest rules. It has been this way since TSR days and it's not likely to change.

Cowled_wizard

I dont like many things about 3rd and 4th but other things do make a lot of sense.
I think i rather have 2nd or 5th edition. I hope it is much more restrictive than 3rd and 4th. Id like the rules to be restrictive about classes races, etc. I dont like the ¨anybody can be anything¨ concept. I doubt wizards will listen to me though.

Myth drannor (abandoned and full of high lvl monsters) before being taken sounds like AWESOME! Anybody know how to dispel Elven High Magic permanent Ilusions (wink wink) ?

jankiel

Can't we stay with the one used in BG and BG2?

Cowled_wizard

jankiel said:

Can't we stay with the one used in BG and BG2?

Its up to wizards of the coast and the probable answer is: no , we cant

CoM_Solaufein

I'm old school. So no.

GoodSteve

Cowled_wizard said:

I dont like many things about 3rd and 4th but other things do make a lot of sense.
I think i rather have 2nd or 5th edition. I hope it is much more restrictive than 3rd and 4th. Id like the rules to be restrictive about classes races, etc. I dont like the ¨anybody can be anything¨ concept. I doubt wizards will listen to me though.

Myth drannor (abandoned and full of high lvl monsters) before being taken sounds like AWESOME! Anybody know how to dispel Elven High Magic permanent Ilusions (wink wink) ?

I'm not too privvy on the rules for 5e but I doubt they've gone back to restricting race/class combos since the big idea for DnD lately is to make everything into a big melting pot so any character can be anything and all things written in a splat book are in every setting (hence the monstrosity that was 4e realms). I'm personally not a fan of race/class restrictions because it simply made no sense. You can be a dwarf with 18 intelligence but you can't have spent years (in your much longer than a human life span) learning to cast spells as a wizard, which anyone with the aptitude (read: high intelligence) should be able to do. Why, you ask? Because we said so! That's not a good enough answer for me. Or, you're an elf... you can be a ranger, and you can be a cleric, and you can be more than 1 class at a time, but not those two classes... it's simply beyond every single elf in the world to combine those two roles... it takes a touch of human blood to be able to be a devout woodsman. What?

I'd like the game to use 3.x or Pathfinder rules, and if not those then 2e. Will they? No. They will use whatever current ruleset DnD is using when the game comes out.

HandofTyr

It's arguable how much 4e in in Next. I think most would call it more of a 2e/3e cross. As to the actual question, it might be nice. It's hard to say right now. Next isn't looking all that great at the moment, but I think it could work passably in a BG style game. The question is if WotC will deliver on the promise of an extremely malleable system. If they do, it could be difficult for a computer game to accurately represent. A lot of toggles in the options screen I suppose, or rely on modders.

Another tangent- was anyone else thinking 4e was practically begging for a classic SRPG implementation? It seems tailor made for that sort of thing.

The_Guilty_Party

It's probably also worth noting that no system ever survived fully intact when it was translated into video game form. So we'd end up with some weird-ass amalgam pretty much no matter what.

Highborne

5e seems like a basic form of D&D, with little in the way of customization or interesting combinations. It is like 2e but with some 3 & 4e tossed in for flavor (feats, etc.).

Boring classes with static level up bonuses, nothing that allows you to make your character unique at all, etc. Just like 2e.

Highborne

HandofTyr said:

It's arguable how much 4e in in Next. I think most would call it more of a 2e/3e cross. As to the actual question, it might be nice. It's hard to say right now. Next isn't looking all that great at the moment, but I think it could work passably in a BG style game. The question is if WotC will deliver on the promise of an extremely malleable system. If they do, it could be difficult for a computer game to accurately represent. A lot of toggles in the options screen I suppose, or rely on modders.

Another tangent- was anyone else thinking 4e was practically begging for a classic SRPG implementation? It seems tailor made for that sort of thing.

4e could easily be made into a game as the rules are be set in stone and feats/powers consolidated into non-bad ones.

With the plethora of hybrid and multiclasses available it would let people play whatever kind of character they wanted and make them at least relatively useful. Also, they could fix the bad math that 4e had for attack and defenses, and likely balance out the static modifiers to damage to ensure different playstyles could be utilized.

Silverstar

Wouldn't a BGIII be required to use the 5th edition rules? That's been my understanding at least, that Wizards of the Coast won't let any game not using the newest ruleset see the light of day.

Personally I wouldn't like 5th edition though as it probably continues where 4th edition left off with the entire IP having been trashed just because someone felt like hitting the reset button.

Tetraploid

I don't know anything about different edition rules beyond the games I have played them in, so can't possibly comment on 5e or 4e or anything beyond what was used in BG/IWD/NN games, but more classes/races seems like a good thing. I liked IWD2's system because you had so much flexibility in character creation, especially when it came to multiclassing. I don't know if the more recent rules are anything like that or whether they have gone back to the more restricted dual/multiclassing that BG has.

LordRumfish

*Want* it to use the new rules? No. I doubt I'll get what I want though, which would be continuing this isometric tradition in 2nd edition AD&D. What I played the most of in PnP was 3.0/3.5, and I am also quite familiar with 4th edition. They both have strengths and weaknesses; I think 4th edition would make for a great tactics/strategy game for instance. 3.5 has the strength of customization, but it also has flaws (with great flexibility comes great broken-ness). I know nothing of 5th edition but I am deeply skeptical of it seeing the direction 4th edition took, and the haphazard wreckage it left in terms of storyline.

2nd edition would be nice to see, but it just doesn't seem like Hasbro will allow it. I don't see why it's so inconceivable to sell an old product if there is sufficient demand.

scriver

Want 5th Ed? No. My impression of it so far is... Well. It seems face-palmingly stupid.

Lateralus

Yes! I would enjoy that very much. Kicking off a revised DnD system on a classic RP franchise is cool.

karnor00

GoodSteve said:

I'm personally not a fan of race/class restrictions because it simply made no sense. You can be a dwarf with 18 intelligence but you can't have spent years (in your much longer than a human life span) learning to cast spells as a wizard, which anyone with the aptitude (read: high intelligence) should be able to do. Why, you ask? Because we said so! That's not a good enough answer for me. Or, you're an elf... you can be a ranger, and you can be a cleric, and you can be more than 1 class at a time, but not those two classes... it's simply beyond every single elf in the world to combine those two roles... it takes a touch of human blood to be able to be a devout woodsman. What?

The vision behind the race/class restrictions is that humans are unique in the game world are that they can adapt themselves to any situation. Therefore, like in the real world, we can turn our hands to anything we want and achieve at least a reasonable degree of proficiency.

However dwarves, elves and other races were seen as being fundamentally different to humans and lacking the unique human flexibility. So a dwarf is simply too inflexible in his mental approach to be able to become a wizard.

An alternative approach, which you seem to favour, is to assume that other races think the same way as humans but just have different physical characteristics. So a dwarf just becomes essentially a shorter, tougher human.

There's no way to say that one approach is right and the other is wrong. After all, it's not as if any of us has ever met a dwarf to find out what they are really like. Personally I prefer the 2ED approach - but probably in large part due to my being more familiar with it.

Schneidend

A lack of race-class restrictions assumes not that all races think alike, but that all races are equally capable of success in certain skillsets. Also, rather than looking at it as "all races think like humans," think of it more as allowing non-human races to be more than their stereotypes. Sure, maybe dwarven culture doesn't typically leave room for a lot of dwarven Paladins or Mages, but that doesn't mean there are no dissenting personalities and thoughts. No race should be able to be defined 100% in a single sentence or paragraph.

Sten put it best in Dragon Age, I think, when he said that "People are not simple. They cannot be summarized for easy reference in the manner of: 'The elves are a lithe, pointy eared people who excel at poverty.'"

Mornmagor

D&D Next from my experience is alright so far, but we don't have a lot of flavor yet, it's normal, it's not even out.

I never "adored" 2nd Edition, but it's passable, although kind of bland imo.

Nothing tops 3.5 for me, but it's impossible.

I don't have the greatest opinion of 4th Edition.

If something is to be used, better be Next, if i had to choose between 4th and Next.

AstroBryGuy

I say base it on OD&D - go *really* old school! ;-)

elminster

Next is fine.

Lateralus

Mornmagor said:

Nothing tops 3.5 for me

I didn't like the d8 hd for rangers, they streamlined that class into an archer for elves.

SwordsNotWords

If the rules changed in a sequel would it be noticeable to a Baldur's Gate video game player who has never played a tabletop Dungeons and Dragons game?

rexreg

I'm not sure I'd consider any game 'Baldur's Gate' that didn't use the 2nd ed. rules. No more than the games released for PS2 were 'Baldur's Gate'. I'd consider playing something using the 3.X rules, but would need to be convinced by other BG players' reactions. 4th ed. is my least favourite edition & D&D Next has not grabbed me in any way.