Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

Categories

Dark Dreams of Furiae - a new module for NWN:EE! Buy now
Attention, new and old users! Please read the new rules of conduct for the forums, and we hope you enjoy your stay!

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

24567

Comments

  • GoodSteveGoodSteve Member Posts: 607
    edited October 2013
    karnor00 said:

    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.
    The argument about different races "not thinking the same" and thus not being able to wrap their minds around arcane magic really makes no sense. Many races can be mages or cast arcane magic and many of those races are incredibly different from one another, far more different than the difference between Gnomes (who can be a mage) and Dwarves (who can't.) For some reason a Gnome thinks so much differently than a Dwarf that they can be a mage, even though they are considered "kin" and "racial cousins." A gnome thinks too far apart from a dwarf that the dwarf cannot learn arcane magic but a drow thinks close enough to a human that they both can? Or a Red Dragon and an Elf are close enough that they can both excell at the mage's art? What about a Gnome raised by Dwarves? He thinks enough like a Gnome, even though he is raised by Dwarves, so he can still be a mage? So, a Dwarf raised in a wizards tower, who knows nothing of his own society but is well versed in the goings on a a mage's life can't be one because his mind simple doesn't work that way? He can't memorize arcane words, symbols, and gestures for some reason, even though he can speak, write/read, and has hands? I'm not seeing how that makes sense.

    I feel that having the option to be a Dwarf mage or a Half-Orc paladin should be available. Should every member of that race be one? No, not really. But with every group of people there are those who stand out as different, those that strive to be something more than what is "normal" for themselves and their peers. They should be allowed to do so in the rules. The rules shouldn't force racial stereotypes, those stereotypes are there, and still make for the classic fantasy feel of the games, so allowing a player to be a Dwarf mage wont get rid of them but will let players who are interested in Dwarves and interested in arcane magic make the character they most want to play. I see no harm in it.

    SilverstarCowled_wizard
  • KoyoteKoyote Member Posts: 89
    5th edition?!?
    I didn't realize they made a 4th edition. Damn I live under a rock.

  • reedmilfamreedmilfam Member Posts: 2,808
    I don't really care what rule set they use and don't attribute the greatness of the game to 2nd ed. The difference, however, is in 'feel'. 2E makes non-human (demi) rare and exotic, while later versions go the other way (there are races in 4th Ed that I cannot even begin to describe; I only know about them 2nd hand). Anyway, the writing and story are infinitely more important to me than the version of the rules that are implemented in the game.

  • FrecheFreche Member Posts: 473
    I don't see why they should make a third bg game at all.
    New ip, with a rule set designed for cRPG.

  • SchneidendSchneidend Member Posts: 3,190

    I don't really care what rule set they use and don't attribute the greatness of the game to 2nd ed. The difference, however, is in 'feel'. 2E makes non-human (demi) rare and exotic, while later versions go the other way (there are races in 4th Ed that I cannot even begin to describe; I only know about them 2nd hand). Anyway, the writing and story are infinitely more important to me than the version of the rules that are implemented in the game.

    To what races are you referring?

  • the_spyderthe_spyder Member Posts: 5,018
    No, I do not want any future BG3 game to be 5th edition. Keep it the same rules set of the previous game if for no other reason than consistency sake.

    As far as what @reedmilfam was saying, I "think" they are confusing 'Advanced' with 2E. In advanced, Demi-humans were limited by class/level restrictions which made them overall less attractive to play than humans (or at least that was the intent). The original concept as I understand it, and Frank explained it, was that it was intended to be a primarily Human dominant world with just a few demi-humans. Hence, it was designed such that the limitations made them less ideal choices and therefore more exotic when you saw them.

    2E largely changed that, as did later editions. Now they are just as prolific and you have things like Tieflings and other planes walkers.

    reedmilfam
  • ZanianZanian Member Posts: 329
    I'll admit I haven't read up on 5e, but seeing as that's the most logical choice, there's not really much we can do anyway. I'd prefer it to just stay 2nd edition, or maybe 3.5, but it isn't the end of the world if it goes 5th.
    I'll learn to love it if the rest of the game is up to BG standards.

  • badbromancebadbromance Member Posts: 238
    5e looks pretty weak to me so far but as long as it's not 3.5 I'm happy.

  • AstroBryGuyAstroBryGuy Member Posts: 3,415

    No, I do not want any future BG3 game to be 5th edition. Keep it the same rules set of the previous game if for no other reason than consistency sake.

    As far as what @reedmilfam was saying, I "think" they are confusing 'Advanced' with 2E. In advanced, Demi-humans were limited by class/level restrictions which made them overall less attractive to play than humans (or at least that was the intent). The original concept as I understand it, and Frank explained it, was that it was intended to be a primarily Human dominant world with just a few demi-humans. Hence, it was designed such that the limitations made them less ideal choices and therefore more exotic when you saw them.

    2E largely changed that, as did later editions. Now they are just as prolific and you have things like Tieflings and other planes walkers.

    No, 2E still had the racial level limits, but it did increase them (in general) over AD&D 1E. 2E also restricted what classes races other than human could be, just as AD&D 1E had done. BG1/2 implement the race/class restrictions, but not the level limits.

    FYI, 2E was also branded as "AD&D", they didn't drop the "Advanced" until 3rd Edition. Of course, the current version numbering doesn't count the original D&D (OD&D) or the "Basic Set" that was released at the same time as AD&D.

    Thrasymachus
  • karnor00karnor00 Member Posts: 679
    GoodSteve said:

    So, a Dwarf raised in a wizards tower, who knows nothing of his own society but is well versed in the goings on a a mage's life can't be one because his mind simple doesn't work that way? He can't memorize arcane words, symbols, and gestures for some reason, even though he can speak, write/read, and has hands? I'm not seeing how that makes sense.

    Hmm, I don't really understand how it doesn't make sense in the context of a fantasy world with lots of made up stuff that doesn't make sense.

    So if I understand correctly, you're happy to accept a world with magic, gods, elemental breathing dragons, golems, mobile black puddings, frozen technological advancement and other planes of existence to name but a few. But dwarves not being able to become wizards crosses the line?

    Brude
  • davendaven Member Posts: 112
    Please no BG3. Let the Franchise die in peace.

    Obsidian have the right idea with Project Eternity. Come up with something new! Or maybe another game set in Forgotten Realms which is not BG3.

  • WorgWorg Member Posts: 170
    Yeah, it's like that new PnP adventure "Murder in baldur's gate". It has the symbol of Bhaal on the front page and trying its best to lure me into 4ed, but my god I am not giving it a chance since I am pretty sure I will be hopelessly disappointed.

    I am all for improvements/better implementation(out of the box thinking within the box) of 2nd edition in bg3, but if I have to play with a new system then project eternity and the new torment is already offering that.

  • CorvinoCorvino Member Posts: 2,269
    Regardless of ruleset the developers would have a degree of editorial control over the story and characters, similar to a DM setting conditions for players.

    Even using 4e rules they could say arbitrarily that players can choose only the races available in BG1 & 2 as they must be a direct descendant of the original Bhaalspawn, for example. There are various story reasons as well as game logic ones (you can't play as a giant, the doors are too small!) that can restrict things.

    I'm pretty indifferent to the ruleset used. It will untimately come down to how any ruleset is implemented. I mainly want the Forgotten Realms we know from Baldur's Gate 1, 2 and TOB to be brought to life well.

  • SharnSharn Member Posts: 188
    I always liked 3.5 the best from the versions of the game I have played, I haven't even looked at the rules for 5th edition yet.

    That being said, as much as I disliked 4th edition as a table top game, the rules lend itself very well for a crpg, particularly if it was a turn based tactical game.

  • GoodSteveGoodSteve Member Posts: 607
    karnor00 said:

    GoodSteve said:

    So, a Dwarf raised in a wizards tower, who knows nothing of his own society but is well versed in the goings on a a mage's life can't be one because his mind simple doesn't work that way? He can't memorize arcane words, symbols, and gestures for some reason, even though he can speak, write/read, and has hands? I'm not seeing how that makes sense.

    Hmm, I don't really understand how it doesn't make sense in the context of a fantasy world with lots of made up stuff that doesn't make sense.

    So if I understand correctly, you're happy to accept a world with magic, gods, elemental breathing dragons, golems, mobile black puddings, frozen technological advancement and other planes of existence to name but a few. But dwarves not being able to become wizards crosses the line?

    Basically yes.

    Player: Wow, this sounds like a really fun game! I think I'm going to make a Dwarf Mage. I love dwarves like Gimli, and Gimli mixed with Gandalf would be really cool!
    DM:Uh, sorry you can't do that.
    Player:Aw... why not?
    DM: *Throws glitter in players face* Magic!

    On a side note many people seem more than willing to accept a world with god(s). I'm not sure why that one is such a shocker for you.

    jackjack
  • BelgarathMTHBelgarathMTH Member Posts: 5,611
    edited October 2013
    I'm coming more and more to the opinion that what I want isn't another Baldur's Gate game, but a new D&D game in the same style with a great epic story starting at first level. It would be nice if it were set in the Sword Coast area, with lots of easter eggs and references to the Baldur's Gate games. But don't call it "Baldur's Gate 3", or it is doomed to fail before you even start designing it.

    CorvinojackjackBrude
  • DeeDee Member Posts: 10,447
    I've always wanted to make an action-adventure game about Melicamp's origin story. But every time I bring it up, they kick me down the stairs.

    On a more serious note, from what I've seen of 5e I like what Wizards is doing with the system, making it more modular in scope. I find the system very promising, and it also makes the potential for a cRPG implementation a lot more optimistic.

    CorvinoSwordsNotWordsBelgarathMTHLemernis
  • SchneidendSchneidend Member Posts: 3,190

    I'm coming more and more to the opinion that what I want isn't another Baldur's Gate game, but a new D&D game in the same style with a great epic story starting at first level. It would be nice if it were set in the Sword Coast area, with lots of easter eggs and references to the Baldur's Gate games. But don't call it "Baldur's Gate 3", or it is doomed to fail before you even start designing it.

    If you have the rights to do it and the game is set in and around Baldur's Gate, there's really no reason NOT to call it Baldur's Gate 3. It makes infinitely more sense from a marketing standpoint.

    SwordsNotWordsLemernis
  • SwordsNotWordsSwordsNotWords Member Posts: 147

    I'm coming more and more to the opinion that what I want isn't another Baldur's Gate game, but a new D&D game in the same style with a great epic story starting at first level. It would be nice if it were set in the Sword Coast area, with lots of easter eggs and references to the Baldur's Gate games. But don't call it "Baldur's Gate 3", or it is doomed to fail before you even start designing it.

    If you have the rights to do it and the game is set in and around Baldur's Gate, there's really no reason NOT to call it Baldur's Gate 3. It makes infinitely more sense from a marketing standpoint.
    Agreed. At the very least call it Baldur's Gate "Something", where something is returns, legacy, infinite, or whatever buzz word you fancy.

    Brude
  • the_spyderthe_spyder Member Posts: 5,018
    GoodSteve said:

    karnor00 said:


    So if I understand correctly, you're happy to accept a world with magic, gods, elemental breathing dragons, golems, mobile black puddings, frozen technological advancement and other planes of existence to name but a few. But dwarves not being able to become wizards crosses the line?

    Basically yes.

    Player: Wow, this sounds like a really fun game! I think I'm going to make a Dwarf Mage. I love dwarves like Gimli, and Gimli mixed with Gandalf would be really cool!
    DM:Uh, sorry you can't do that.
    Player:Aw... why not?
    DM: *Throws glitter in players face* Magic!

    On a side note many people seem more than willing to accept a world with god(s). I'm not sure why that one is such a shocker for you.
    Just to make things more obtuse than they already are, the original point wasn't that Dwarves couldn't use magic. it was that Dwarven adventurers weren't Wizards. There is a distinction there. Basically, the life of a Dwarf wizard was not one that took to adventuring.

    Again, the original concept was so that the world was more humanocentric.

    However, here is another wrinkle to throw in the pot. I personally don't like how everything is so genericized such that there is no 'Real' differentiation between the races. I think it actually adds value to a system to make is such that uniqueness and individuality can be embraced without someone saying "No fair. X can be a Wizard. I want to be JUST LIKE THEM!!!"

    nanosunset00
  • SchneidendSchneidend Member Posts: 3,190



    Just to make things more obtuse than they already are, the original point wasn't that Dwarves couldn't use magic. it was that Dwarven adventurers weren't Wizards. There is a distinction there. Basically, the life of a Dwarf wizard was not one that took to adventuring.

    Again, the original concept was so that the world was more humanocentric.

    However, here is another wrinkle to throw in the pot. I personally don't like how everything is so genericized such that there is no 'Real' differentiation between the races. I think it actually adds value to a system to make is such that uniqueness and individuality can be embraced without someone saying "No fair. X can be a Wizard. I want to be JUST LIKE THEM!!!"

    I'd sooner blame that on the near-identical nature of shorty saves. The race/class restrictions are artificial and nonsensical, and make the non-humans seem like one homogeneous blob of bleh when the only reason that there are no dwarf mages is a single sentence/paragraph that they simply do not and will never go on adventures, as though every dwarf wizard had the exact same proclivities.

    Later editions differentiated the hell out of the races with more unique racial features, racial feats, easier access to racial weapons, racial paragon paths/prestige classes. Much more effective to give races access to every baseline choice but give them choices only they can have.

    GoodSteveAcridSyphilis
  • the_spyderthe_spyder Member Posts: 5,018
    @Schneidend - just to play 'Devil's advocate' for a moment, how so are the race/class restrictions non-nonsensical?

    I can conceptually see Dwarven crafters learning the types of magic necessary to enchant items, but not necessarily the same type (or with the same degree or application) of magic that Elves or Humans learn. Further, I can see Halflings being much more the agrarian species such that wizardry would simply never occur to them, but rangers and scouts and fighters would. I see these distinctions as making very much sense and not being nonsensical in the slightest.

    An argument could be made that the function of every race having to shoehorn into the same generic base class smacks far too much of 'Star Fleet Academy' circa TNG where everyone is a fluffy bunny 'Equal' and there are no differences. Oh, one race or another has one trick that the others don't but these by and large are of no consequences. I don't see 'wrinkles above the nose as opposed to pointy ears' as necessarily differentiation.

    As for the paragon paths, these must be artifacts of 4E or later. I am not familiar with them.

    Again, all as Devil's advocate as much as anything else.

    sunset00
  • Nic_MercyNic_Mercy Member Posts: 405
    I'd prefer to stay with 2E myself... though I'd love to see a BG game that was 2E + Players Options: Skills & Powers rules for customizing characters and spellcasting.

  • nanonano Member Posts: 1,632
    I think the race/class restrictions make sense in a world where there's limited interaction between the races, and some races just never develop a magical education system or whatever it takes to become a wizard. In a more cosmopolitan world where you have cities full of different races and scroll shops everywhere it's more likely that a dwarf would see wizards in the street and decide he wants to study magic as well. My guess is that 2e was designed with the first scenario in mind while BG is more the second.

    In the end, I'm happy with either scenario because class is the one that dictates the way your character plays. Race is largely aesthetic and if the designers choose to put in restrictions for flavor reasons it's fine by me.

    sunset00
  • the_spyderthe_spyder Member Posts: 5,018
    edited October 2013
    @nano - more or less. Gary and Frank and the rest envisioned a world where humans were 99% of the population, but with a few dwarves, elves and halflings. BG was placed in Faerun, which by that time had evolved into a more cosmopolitan mecca.

    I am happy with either, but I can see that different races might very well have cultural and even biological differences that might prevent this hypothetical dwarf from becoming the kind of wandering adventurer wizard that an elf or a human might become. Not saying that is the way it should be, but I don't understand why people have to be clones of each other to be 'equal'. And being different doesn't mean you are 'Bad'.

    sunset00
  • SchneidendSchneidend Member Posts: 3,190

    @Schneidend - just to play 'Devil's advocate' for a moment, how so are the race/class restrictions non-nonsensical?

    I can conceptually see Dwarven crafters learning the types of magic necessary to enchant items, but not necessarily the same type (or with the same degree or application) of magic that Elves or Humans learn. Further, I can see Halflings being much more the agrarian species such that wizardry would simply never occur to them, but rangers and scouts and fighters would. I see these distinctions as making very much sense and not being nonsensical in the slightest.

    An argument could be made that the function of every race having to shoehorn into the same generic base class smacks far too much of 'Star Fleet Academy' circa TNG where everyone is a fluffy bunny 'Equal' and there are no differences. Oh, one race or another has one trick that the others don't but these by and large are of no consequences. I don't see 'wrinkles above the nose as opposed to pointy ears' as necessarily differentiation.

    As for the paragon paths, these must be artifacts of 4E or later. I am not familiar with them.

    Again, all as Devil's advocate as much as anything else.

    Again, we're talking about generalizing entire species of non-humans into subscribing to the exact same dogma. The idea that humans are the only ones who can break from any norms is patently ridiculous.

    GoodSteve
  • nanonano Member Posts: 1,632
    Breaking norms is the human race's special ability! We're sucky but adaptable.

    Corvinosunset00
Sign In or Register to comment.