Point buy system instead of rerolling is the stupidest thing you can put into a game imo. It robs people of choice on how to play. Some people like to power play with the highest score they can get and some don't like it. If you give people the options to reroll then you can at least adress both groups. If you do point buy system you're actually saying 'screw you' to a certain group of gamers and excluding them from your potential buyer group.
I found additional info on the Wizards forum -http://bit.ly/1f2FiTW but BEWARE there are some heavy spoilers there if you are thinking on reading the books (I've just finished the 2nd in the series) and absolutely enjoying them.
I for one am totally looking forward it - I already feel that "magic" feel I haven't felt almost for decades - the witnessing of a new "creation" inside my favorite fantasy world. And this time it will probably be even greater than Time of Troubles was (I hope!). Imagine if we had a new PC game series starting in it. Wow. ^^
And of course the Bhaalspawn saga is over. But Baldur's Gate is a city, a setting and a brand. BG3 should be an all new story for all new characters, in the same style and setting.
This ↑.
Philip Daigle has said that the odds are great that BG3 would, at the time of its release, be set in the current time period for the Forgotten Realms and using the current toolset at that time. He said that would be what to expect, anyway.
Philip Daigle has said that the odds are great that BG3 would, at the time of its release, be set in the current time period for the Forgotten Realms and using the current toolset at that time. He said that would be what to expect, anyway.
A BG series with a new chosen of a god, set in the newly created lore and world with nifty graphics...pure pleasure. ^^
To me a BG3 would be like a new Matrix movie without Neo. Or a new Tomb Raider game without Lara Croft. The Baldur's Gate games, at least the PC versions, have established that each episode was about CHARNAME. Starting from BG1 and ending with Throne of Bhaal. Making a trilogy with a beginning and an end to an epic.
Sure, Baldur's Gate is a city but there are many grand cities in the Realms and even settings. Al-Qadim, Kara-Tur, Ravenloft, Darksun etc. Why does it need to be named a Baldur's Gate if it will have nothing to do with Gorion's Ward? Baldur's Gate II is called as such because it continues the story of Charname, it's not set in the Baldur's Gate city.
It rubs me off the wrong way as marketing using brand recognition: -"Oh, it's a Baldur's Gate. Does it have anything to do with the story of the other games?" -"Um, no. It takes place 100+ years after. (4E Spellplague)" -"...Game edition? ADnD?" -"Nope. DnD Next." -"So it's Baldur's Gate in name only." -"...Pretty much." @Lemernis As Philip Daigle said.
@atcDave And about 3E I would argue that it gave far more choice than ADnD so I don't see how it's all "same same". You can make Tiefling Paladins. Evil Elven Druids. Gnome Bards. Chaotic Evil Dwarven Rangers. It gave you FAR more choice to make your characters unique with different abilities. 4E is the "make everyone the same" edition, not 3E. And ADnD in many ways as well. All Paladins are Humans. All Rangers were Good and Human/Half-Elf/Elven only. All Druid are Neutral and Humans/Half-Elves. All Gnome Mages are Illusionists. All Bards are Human/Half-Elven.
@Rewolf By the way, in Icewind Dale II you could min/max as well and create characters with 3 CHA/INT/WIS and 18 STR/DEX/CON. Rolling for stats in a video game seems pointless to me. In both games (IWD1 and IWD2) you can make characters with min/maxed stats or characters that are more balanced.
IWD2 just does it easier and more elegant by giving you specific points and not having to reroll again and again to get a desired effect which renders the point of rolling useless. So you can either make a roleplaying build or a powergaming one in 30 seconds instead of rerolling for 10 mins or more like I've seen some people doing here.
Philip Daigle has said that the odds are great that BG3 would, at the time of its release, be set in the current time period for the Forgotten Realms and using the current toolset at that time. He said that would be what to expect, anyway.
A BG series with a new chosen of a god, set in the newly created lore and world with nifty graphics...pure pleasure. ^^
Sorry, I had the wrong link there. Mah bad. It's now edited to the correct one.
By the way, in Icewind Dale II you could min/max as well and create characters with 3 CHA/INT/WIS and 18 STR/DEX/CON. Rolling for stats in a video game seems pointless to me. In both games (IWD1 and IWD2) you can make characters with min/maxed stats or characters that are more balanced.
.
It's not about the min/max. In fact, that's the very thing I find boring. It's the organic randomness of the dice. It's a fighter with a 12 strength and a 15 intelligence. Or the Mage who's both smart, and strong as an ox, who never choses to be a warrior. It is unexpected illogical inconsistencies, that loose their interest and specialness if they are assigned, purely because they were assigned. Same thing with the classes. The Tiefling Paladin is boring because, well, now everyone can be a paladin. It's no longer a special choice. There's no sacrifice or strategic planning in character creation because everyone can do everything. That's what I find boring. Now I know I'm probably fighting a loosing battle on this. Odds are BG3 will be a later rule set, and I won't be interested in it at all. But I can always hope, right up until I can't...
But I think you're fighting the loosing battle on the name. I think the marketing gurus will decide the name has power, even with a new story. And at least on this issue, I'm with the marketing guys.
... Why does it need to be named a Baldur's Gate if it will have nothing to do with Gorion's Ward?...
But it would (well, could) have to do with Gorion's ward--or at least the continuing impact of his or her deeds. It would be about the legacy of the BG series tale in the future. As @chbrooks noted, Bhaal has returned in the current time period of the Realms. So the tie-in between Bhaal's reappearance and the BG saga is basically wide open--it's up to the imagination of the developers.
That said, I cannot agree more that the game can and should take us to other locations in FR. But I also don't see any reason why not to revisit the city Baldur's Gate in the current time period and make it pivotal to the story in some way.
As I see it, the big question is will such a game use Abdel Adrian (i.e., canon figure for Gorion's Ward) in its telling of the past, or allow for either importation or creation of CHARNAME to be Gorion's ward. Again, the deeds of this individual had a major impact on the Sword Coast and Amn a decade and a half prior to the Spellplague; and those events were obviously of great interest to Bhaal as well.
If I were Beamdog, assuming they do get the contract to make BG: Next, I would see if a feature could be added to BG2:EE to export ToB's final save of CHARNAME's character file such that it can be imported into BG: Next. And then find some clever ways to integrate the details of that CHARNAME into story of the new game.
@atcDave That's why I'm opposed to the name being Baldur's Gate and not the gameplay. If they're going to use the name "Baldur's Gate" for marketing, pretty much like the Dark Alliance games, then no thanks.
And also, people forget something. The BG games actually use point-buy. It's not a PnP reroll. You cannot reassign the stats as you wish after the roll.
The roll simply gives you a set amount of ability points and then you use the point-buy method to change them as you wish. Which adds an unnecessary step and not using point-buy from the start.
I don't mind rolling for stats in PnP. Actually in my current 3.5E campaign we rolled for stats. And made a Chaotic Neutral Elven Druid. But in games, it just doesn't work.
About the classes, not everyone can do everything. But everyone can be almost anything. It makes more sense than artificial rules that say "Only humans can be Paladins because shut-up" and "Dwarves cannot be mages for the same reason".
A Tiefling Paladin is far from boring RP-wise. Same for the Evil Elven Druid. How did the former manage to put aside his fiendish origins and how did the latter fall from the goodness of his people? There's a story to tell there. Instead of "oh yay ANOTHER Human Paladin" or "Chaotic Good Elven Ranger". "How original".
I much prefer rolling for characters. Point buy systems usually end up with characters who all have exactly the same stats.
I used to play with a DM who had a very unusual rolling system, but it actually worked out pretty well. We would roll 4D6 and take the best 3 scores. We would do this 50 times in total, and then choose a continuous block of 6 and use those in the order on the character sheet.
I meant stat rolls were usually pretty good, but characters also tended to have a interesting variety of stats. There was a reasonable chance of getting an 18 but if you wanted use that 18 for, say, a fighter with an 18 strength then you could easily also end up with low dex but high charisma.
@karnor00 I'm not sure how characters can have "exactly" same stats with point buy. For Fighters, you put the highest in STR, next CON, then DEX or INT to get skill points. For Wizards, put the highest in INT, then CON, then DEX, then whatever.
Unless you mean same stats but different allocation. I'm just saying that the BG games use point-buy in a more concealed way anyway and it doesn't work in video games.
People still take points off STR for example and putting them in INT to get 18 INT. How's that different from using point-buy and doing the same?
And if you took the default roll, no rerolls, for your character then you might have something like a Mage with 9 INT, 13 WIS, 11 CON, 17 STR, 15 DEX etc.
It might work for people wanting a challenge but you can consciously challenge yourself anyway with point-buy in IWDII anyway. It just takes some willpower to not put 18 in INT. The same as not hitting the reroll button again and again.
Archaos its that engineered description you started with that leaves some of us cold. Those "lousy" scores you list later look far more interesting to me. And I've seen so many different models for rolling stats, its very hard to describe anything as typical. IIRC, the 2E DMG lists like 6 methods of score generating (including a couple of point buy methods) and suggestions for point swapping; and I've probably seen another 20 variations used by actual DMs. But the point in all is the same, there's a lot more variety and character with random(ish) methods than there is when players are simply deciding what goes where. And there should be. If I'm creating a new character, it would be stupid of me to assign unneeded points to Intelligence for my warrior. While a randomized method takes that decision from me. Now admittedly, 1 to 1 point swapping like BG uses reintroduces some of those engineered problems. But as a player, I find having that choice better than simply having to choose between smart and stupid in the first place.
Perhaps this is one of those things that could have a selector switch with each new game; character generation by random roll or by point allocation? That would work for me.
BTW on the class thing, most of all I want restrictions that suit a setting. I don't care for settings that are so wide open everything is open to everyone. I prefer setting specific restrictions that establish a particular flavor. Like saying ALL Paladins come from the Temple of Bob in the City of Walls and must be Human or Kender... Or Bards can only be females from a certain tribe of gypsies... I would say Fighter and Thief are the only classes I would leave open to just anyone from anywhere. And even then I might restrict weapons and abilities at the outset if someone is from say a more primitive or alien background.
@atcDave ...I was talking about the game implementation of it all along and mentioned it several times. Rolling for stats doesn't work in BG because it's not PnP rolling supervised by a DM. It's random number of abilities and point buy.
Well, the setting has no such restrictions if we're talking about 3.5E. About ADnD. Most of it makes no sense. I think it's been said that the only reason only Humans are allowed to be Paladins was because Humans have nothing going for them except Dual-class.
Well no, Paladins were originally patterned after the knights of Charlemagne, with a little bit of Crusader thrown in (who were coincidentally all human). Rangers were from Tolkein so Human or half-elven made perfect sense. The restrictions for Elves and Dwarves and Halflings were all Tolkein inspired. And it all made sense in the Greyhawk setting designed for it to. Forgotten Realms was a jury-rig mash up when Gygax wouldn't let certain changes be made to Greyhawk.
And now the Realms change everytime WotC wants to do a new rule set. Oi...
So I'm actually not that wed to the Realms. I've only ever played it in CRPGs. Most DMs I gamed with created their own settings. A couple used Greyhawk or Dragonlance. I use a Greek mythos. But the point in all of that is again that the restrictions should match the setting. Too wide open is not interesting, because there is no "role" in the role playing. A cleric should know what they're a cleric of, a Paladin should know what their causes are, etc.
I have no problem with different classes and restrictions (see Dragonlance or Kara Tur), I just don't like "anything goes".
As to the other issue, I fail to see what DM supervision has to do with score rolling. The system in BG and IWD works perfectly well. It is different from that used in PNP, and if I were calling the shots it would have been a little different. But that is true for almost every PNP game I ever played too (we're doing what now? okaaayyy, well you're the boss...). Ideally stats generation is there to provide a launching point for character design, not to give a player carte blanche to do whatever they want.
... If I'm creating a new character, it would be stupid of me to assign unneeded points to Intelligence for my warrior. While a randomized method takes that decision from me. Now admittedly, 1 to 1 point swapping like BG uses reintroduces some of those engineered problems. But as a player, I find having that choice better than simply having to choose between smart and stupid in the first place...
What I appreciate about the BG series implementation of character creation is the fact that there's a limit to the number of ability points based on the roll, but I can then distribute those points (although there are some minimum ability scores according to class). For me, that's a nice balance of a random element and some control by me as a player.
... If I'm creating a new character, it would be stupid of me to assign unneeded points to Intelligence for my warrior. While a randomized method takes that decision from me. Now admittedly, 1 to 1 point swapping like BG uses reintroduces some of those engineered problems. But as a player, I find having that choice better than simply having to choose between smart and stupid in the first place...
What I appreciate about the BG series implementation of character creation is the fact that there's a limit to the number of ability points based on the roll, but I can then distribute those points (although there are some minimum ability scores according to class). For me, that's a nice balance of a random element and some control by me as a player.
I mostly agree Lemernis. If I were to redesign I would make it two for one swaps instead of one for one, but that's a fairly small thing.
@atcDave Again, I was talking of the implementation of Paladins etc in DnD, not where they originated from. There are no Paladins in Lord of the Rings, I believe. Though people have said that Aragorn is probably a Half-Elf Ranger/Paladin by 3.5E rules.
What I meant is that Paladins are an exclusive feature to humans in ADnD because Humans lack any other special feature about them except being able to dual-class and choose any class. No racial traits.
A DM supervision changes everything about rolling. He's supervising the dice to see if you cheat for your stats. And not rerolling till you get 18 in 4-5 stats. In BG that's impossible to do so instead we get a semi-rolling/semi-point-buy system.
...Which is basically the same with the one in Icewind Dale II (Pure point buy) by letting you to adjust the rolls to your liking.
I think he's saying Paladins were implemented that way in part due to said origins, not simply giving a history lesson.
I guess so. But if you have Elf/Dwarf Clerics and Elven Rangers, why not Dwarf Paladins and Elven Druids too? After all, wasn't Aragorn a Half-Elf? So it should be limited to Humans and Half-Elves. If you get my point.
It's an inconsistent and arbitary limitation that doesn't make much sense. Either rule-wise or lore-wise. It's basically "Paladins are only for Humans because the historical Paladins were humans".
@Archaos - I think your primary issue is (and i could be wrong, so please correct me) in error. BG is primarily a solo played game. therefore, tightly controlled and monitored stats isn't really that big of an issue. Even in Multi-player STATS don't make or break your character. Oh, sure, Dorn does a whole lot more damage than Khalid, but if you are role playing, that is less important.
And then you can augment them with tomes adding an additional 9 stats, plus some more in Watcher's keep and still more at the end of SoA. Again, will that break the game? No. Your Charname is supposed to be superior. That's just the way it is.
Even having Insane stats doesn't 'break' the game. If you were to play with all 18's, would it really make any given character "That much more powerful?" Probably not. A bit, maybe, but not over the top. I once played a game where a 'Randomly' (yeah, right Seth) generated Paladin came in with all 18's and an 18-00 STR. At the end of the day, he wasn't 'The only character necessary', nor did he have the most fun. he was merely another guy in the party. He swung his sword when necessary and he smiled a lot in conversations, but really it was all about how we individually role played our characters that mattered.
And then there are players who are only playing 'some game' who never played PnP, or who don't care about stats. You have to allow, in a CRPG, for their ability to enjoy the game as well.
I also agree with @atcDave on the unnecessary 'Anything goes' strategy of 3E. it breaks the game in very fundamental ways in my view. In AD&D (2E and before), the game was set up to be optimal at 2 Fighter types, 1 Cleric, 1 Thief and 1 Wizard. Each class had a function in the game to play. In order to overcome "Most" dungeons there were challenges that required unique skill sets. this is no longer the case with 3E. Your characters can dip in and get thieving skills, or healing powers, or spell casting or combat in equal measure, thus invalidating the need for those other classes.
But more than that, every single character is kind of samey. There's nothing unique or original about being a paladin because any race or character can be that. Races no longer have strengths and weaknesses such that they are unique in play. Playing an Elf or a Dwarf play pretty much the same. Stats are all 'Balanced' as well so that no one stands out, and no one is left behind. Boring really.
Everything is leveled, and more importantly 'balanced' such that PvP is 'Fair'. this was hardly ever a factor in AD&D. we were too busy staying alive against monsters and solving quests to fight among ourselves. Early versions of the game were not about how to compete against our party members. It was about adventuring. I'd like to think that BG still has some of that.
Archaos I think you're just putting it backwards. The strength of humans in AD&D was exactly that they could do any class. It wasn't a bone thrown their way, it was a defining trait. I'm not saying I completely agree with the result, I allow non-human paladins in my own setting. But the original design of races and classes was not merely random or game design. It had to do with a particular environment and flavor. And humans as a powerful race was part of that design.
And I just completely disagree on the dice rolling. You re-roll or don't re-roll just like anything else in a CRPG; don't like the result? Hit reload. Its a defining difference of CRPGs vs PNP.
Well, then we'll agree to disagree. I come from a place where I like choice when I make my characters so I can make them unique.
Also I prefer point-buy because I know I'll always get a fair result and not wasting time rerolling to make the character I imagine. If for example I want to make a Wizard that is wise but not charismatic, then I can max INT, put some into Wis and dump CHA.
That cannot really happen with rolling. So I have to accomodate to the whims of the dice instead of making the character I want to play.
For example: "I want to be a Paladin!" "Roll your dice" *Rolls 11 for Charisma* "..Hmm, too little Charisma, you'll have to be a Fighter"
And it's not always a power-gaming one as I dislike putting negatives into stats unless I can roleplay it and I am comfortable with any changes in the dialogue or his personality.
In 3.5E humans are arguably one of the best races around as they give pretty general but important bonuses. And it made no sense in ADnD that dwarves couldn't be mages for example. There was no ingame lore or explanation why they couldn't as far I'm concerned. While it was flavorful, it was not believable or made any in character sense.
Also while the Elves were so in tune with nature, had nature gods (Rillfane Rallathil) and could become Rangers, they couldn't become Druids for no reason. Maybe with some kits, I think.
I like flavor but not when there's no explanation to that.
However, I think you really miss the point on random stats. All of my characters are role play only. If I want a Wizard that is high INT and low CHA, I can do that with random stat rolls as easily as with a stat buy system. A random roll system doesn't preclude moving stats from one STAT that I want to be low to another that I want to be high. it merely caps the total points in unusual ways.
But that's were random rolls shine in my view. I might end up with unusual rolls that I might not have thought were a good combination and then having to play that character. That is where the random roll system really shines. Because then I really have to find ways to play the role of a character that is not 'Balanced' or 'optimal'. Ever played a thief with a low STR, mediocre DEX and Low CHA? I have. And it was loads of fun. It's there that role play shines FAR over a flat point buy system.
@the_spyder Ironically, our Rogue at our campaign rolled 6 STR, 17 DEX and 9 CHA.
I can appreciate the randomness of the dice if there's a way to prevent you from rerolling so many times.
For example I think in Temple of Elemental Evil on Ironman Mode, you were limited to a few or only one reroll or you had to live with the much fewer points of point-buy. Something like that can work in video games.
The rolling dice part is not so bad to me, I can live with it. I'm just not a fan of limitations that are not justified.
Eh, we're basically saying here why oranges are better than bananas.
For me, it's a non issue. I don't re-roll ad-nausium until I get 94 or above. My Wizard had something like a 72 when all was said and done in my most recent play through with BG and that worked out just fine. some people will abuse the system, but then again, some people don't care about the PnP rules and just want a viable powerhouse character. Let em play that way if they like. And since I don't have to play WITH them, the fact that they can and do re-roll for ever until they get those crazy stats, doesn't bother me.
there's a lot to love about ToEE.
And yeah, were you see limitations, I see flavor. the fact elves make great archers and wizards and dwarves not so much, made so that if you played a dwarf, it felt very real and different than playing an elf. In 3E that is sadly no longer the case. That just doesn't sit right with me. But then, if it does with you, great. more power to you. Strength of the system(s).
I think a nice analogy would be the Wild Mage vs the vanilla Mage or Sorcerer.
Some think that the randomness of his spells (stats) add flavor and keep you on your toes. It adds challenge. Others say that what good is a Mage that cannot control his spells? It can prove disastrous. (Bad rolls)
While I appreciate both sides, I am the type of person that wants to be in control of his character and his personality, than random dice rolls. Since I am creating everything about him and stats are basic elements of his personality.
So I rest my case here. There is no right answer by comparing two different things. Though I wouldn't call point-buy stupid. It has it's place as it depends on you, how you want your character to be and not chance.
I make all of my BG1/2 characters using an 80 point, point-buy system. Stats are what they are. Big deal. It's a SINGLE PLAYER game. I don't care what anyone else does.
As for the rules, and again as a single player game, I want the rules to be baroque, quirky, and ultimately broken. If we were talking about a competitive multi-player game, then sure, strive for balance. Looking back at all of the truly great single player games, they have all been (in my experience) able to be completely and utterly broken wide the f--k open.
Word to the wise, game designers: don't worry too much about balance. Just throw cool stuff in, the more the better. Everyone complains about balance (esp. when they've become competent) but people love feeling clever (esp. when they aren't really). So-called broken systems allow people to be clever.
Comments
If you like to, just do it, if you don't roll once and play.
By the way, in PnP Masters decide how many times a player can reroll, in BG you're just the Master of yourself.
I for one am totally looking forward it - I already feel that "magic" feel I haven't felt almost for decades - the witnessing of a new "creation" inside my favorite fantasy world. And this time it will probably be even greater than Time of Troubles was (I hope!). Imagine if we had a new PC game series starting in it. Wow. ^^
Philip Daigle has said that the odds are great that BG3 would, at the time of its release, be set in the current time period for the Forgotten Realms and using the current toolset at that time. He said that would be what to expect, anyway.
The Baldur's Gate games, at least the PC versions, have established that each episode was about CHARNAME. Starting from BG1 and ending with Throne of Bhaal.
Making a trilogy with a beginning and an end to an epic.
Sure, Baldur's Gate is a city but there are many grand cities in the Realms and even settings. Al-Qadim, Kara-Tur, Ravenloft, Darksun etc.
Why does it need to be named a Baldur's Gate if it will have nothing to do with Gorion's Ward?
Baldur's Gate II is called as such because it continues the story of Charname, it's not set in the Baldur's Gate city.
It rubs me off the wrong way as marketing using brand recognition:
-"Oh, it's a Baldur's Gate. Does it have anything to do with the story of the other games?"
-"Um, no. It takes place 100+ years after. (4E Spellplague)"
-"...Game edition? ADnD?"
-"Nope. DnD Next."
-"So it's Baldur's Gate in name only."
-"...Pretty much."
@Lemernis As Philip Daigle said.
@atcDave
And about 3E I would argue that it gave far more choice than ADnD so I don't see how it's all "same same".
You can make Tiefling Paladins. Evil Elven Druids. Gnome Bards. Chaotic Evil Dwarven Rangers.
It gave you FAR more choice to make your characters unique with different abilities.
4E is the "make everyone the same" edition, not 3E. And ADnD in many ways as well.
All Paladins are Humans. All Rangers were Good and Human/Half-Elf/Elven only. All Druid are Neutral and Humans/Half-Elves. All Gnome Mages are Illusionists. All Bards are Human/Half-Elven.
@Rewolf
By the way, in Icewind Dale II you could min/max as well and create characters with 3 CHA/INT/WIS and 18 STR/DEX/CON.
Rolling for stats in a video game seems pointless to me. In both games (IWD1 and IWD2) you can make characters with min/maxed stats or characters that are more balanced.
IWD2 just does it easier and more elegant by giving you specific points and not having to reroll again and again to get a desired effect which renders the point of rolling useless.
So you can either make a roleplaying build or a powergaming one in 30 seconds instead of rerolling for 10 mins or more like I've seen some people doing here.
Sorry, I had the wrong link there. Mah bad. It's now edited to the correct one.
Same thing with the classes. The Tiefling Paladin is boring because, well, now everyone can be a paladin. It's no longer a special choice. There's no sacrifice or strategic planning in character creation because everyone can do everything. That's what I find boring.
Now I know I'm probably fighting a loosing battle on this. Odds are BG3 will be a later rule set, and I won't be interested in it at all. But I can always hope, right up until I can't...
But I think you're fighting the loosing battle on the name. I think the marketing gurus will decide the name has power, even with a new story. And at least on this issue, I'm with the marketing guys.
That said, I cannot agree more that the game can and should take us to other locations in FR. But I also don't see any reason why not to revisit the city Baldur's Gate in the current time period and make it pivotal to the story in some way.
As I see it, the big question is will such a game use Abdel Adrian (i.e., canon figure for Gorion's Ward) in its telling of the past, or allow for either importation or creation of CHARNAME to be Gorion's ward. Again, the deeds of this individual had a major impact on the Sword Coast and Amn a decade and a half prior to the Spellplague; and those events were obviously of great interest to Bhaal as well.
If I were Beamdog, assuming they do get the contract to make BG: Next, I would see if a feature could be added to BG2:EE to export ToB's final save of CHARNAME's character file such that it can be imported into BG: Next. And then find some clever ways to integrate the details of that CHARNAME into story of the new game.
That's why I'm opposed to the name being Baldur's Gate and not the gameplay.
If they're going to use the name "Baldur's Gate" for marketing, pretty much like the Dark Alliance games, then no thanks.
And also, people forget something. The BG games actually use point-buy. It's not a PnP reroll. You cannot reassign the stats as you wish after the roll.
The roll simply gives you a set amount of ability points and then you use the point-buy method to change them as you wish. Which adds an unnecessary step and not using point-buy from the start.
I don't mind rolling for stats in PnP. Actually in my current 3.5E campaign we rolled for stats. And made a Chaotic Neutral Elven Druid.
But in games, it just doesn't work.
About the classes, not everyone can do everything. But everyone can be almost anything. It makes more sense than artificial rules that say "Only humans can be Paladins because shut-up" and "Dwarves cannot be mages for the same reason".
A Tiefling Paladin is far from boring RP-wise. Same for the Evil Elven Druid.
How did the former manage to put aside his fiendish origins and how did the latter fall from the goodness of his people? There's a story to tell there.
Instead of "oh yay ANOTHER Human Paladin" or "Chaotic Good Elven Ranger". "How original".
I used to play with a DM who had a very unusual rolling system, but it actually worked out pretty well. We would roll 4D6 and take the best 3 scores. We would do this 50 times in total, and then choose a continuous block of 6 and use those in the order on the character sheet.
I meant stat rolls were usually pretty good, but characters also tended to have a interesting variety of stats. There was a reasonable chance of getting an 18 but if you wanted use that 18 for, say, a fighter with an 18 strength then you could easily also end up with low dex but high charisma.
I'm not sure how characters can have "exactly" same stats with point buy.
For Fighters, you put the highest in STR, next CON, then DEX or INT to get skill points.
For Wizards, put the highest in INT, then CON, then DEX, then whatever.
Unless you mean same stats but different allocation. I'm just saying that the BG games use point-buy in a more concealed way anyway and it doesn't work in video games.
People still take points off STR for example and putting them in INT to get 18 INT.
How's that different from using point-buy and doing the same?
And if you took the default roll, no rerolls, for your character then you might have something like a Mage with 9 INT, 13 WIS, 11 CON, 17 STR, 15 DEX etc.
It might work for people wanting a challenge but you can consciously challenge yourself anyway with point-buy in IWDII anyway.
It just takes some willpower to not put 18 in INT. The same as not hitting the reroll button again and again.
Perhaps this is one of those things that could have a selector switch with each new game; character generation by random roll or by point allocation? That would work for me.
BTW on the class thing, most of all I want restrictions that suit a setting. I don't care for settings that are so wide open everything is open to everyone. I prefer setting specific restrictions that establish a particular flavor. Like saying ALL Paladins come from the Temple of Bob in the City of Walls and must be Human or Kender... Or Bards can only be females from a certain tribe of gypsies...
I would say Fighter and Thief are the only classes I would leave open to just anyone from anywhere. And even then I might restrict weapons and abilities at the outset if someone is from say a more primitive or alien background.
...I was talking about the game implementation of it all along and mentioned it several times.
Rolling for stats doesn't work in BG because it's not PnP rolling supervised by a DM.
It's random number of abilities and point buy.
Well, the setting has no such restrictions if we're talking about 3.5E.
About ADnD. Most of it makes no sense.
I think it's been said that the only reason only Humans are allowed to be Paladins was because Humans have nothing going for them except Dual-class.
And now the Realms change everytime WotC wants to do a new rule set. Oi...
So I'm actually not that wed to the Realms. I've only ever played it in CRPGs. Most DMs I gamed with created their own settings. A couple used Greyhawk or Dragonlance. I use a Greek mythos.
But the point in all of that is again that the restrictions should match the setting. Too wide open is not interesting, because there is no "role" in the role playing. A cleric should know what they're a cleric of, a Paladin should know what their causes are, etc.
I have no problem with different classes and restrictions (see Dragonlance or Kara Tur), I just don't like "anything goes".
As to the other issue, I fail to see what DM supervision has to do with score rolling. The system in BG and IWD works perfectly well. It is different from that used in PNP, and if I were calling the shots it would have been a little different. But that is true for almost every PNP game I ever played too (we're doing what now? okaaayyy, well you're the boss...). Ideally stats generation is there to provide a launching point for character design, not to give a player carte blanche to do whatever they want.
Again, I was talking of the implementation of Paladins etc in DnD, not where they originated from.
There are no Paladins in Lord of the Rings, I believe.
Though people have said that Aragorn is probably a Half-Elf Ranger/Paladin by 3.5E rules.
What I meant is that Paladins are an exclusive feature to humans in ADnD because Humans lack any other special feature about them except being able to dual-class and choose any class. No racial traits.
A DM supervision changes everything about rolling. He's supervising the dice to see if you cheat for your stats.
And not rerolling till you get 18 in 4-5 stats.
In BG that's impossible to do so instead we get a semi-rolling/semi-point-buy system.
...Which is basically the same with the one in Icewind Dale II (Pure point buy) by letting you to adjust the rolls to your liking.
If you get my point.
It's an inconsistent and arbitary limitation that doesn't make much sense. Either rule-wise or lore-wise.
It's basically "Paladins are only for Humans because the historical Paladins were humans".
And then you can augment them with tomes adding an additional 9 stats, plus some more in Watcher's keep and still more at the end of SoA. Again, will that break the game? No. Your Charname is supposed to be superior. That's just the way it is.
Even having Insane stats doesn't 'break' the game. If you were to play with all 18's, would it really make any given character "That much more powerful?" Probably not. A bit, maybe, but not over the top. I once played a game where a 'Randomly' (yeah, right Seth) generated Paladin came in with all 18's and an 18-00 STR. At the end of the day, he wasn't 'The only character necessary', nor did he have the most fun. he was merely another guy in the party. He swung his sword when necessary and he smiled a lot in conversations, but really it was all about how we individually role played our characters that mattered.
And then there are players who are only playing 'some game' who never played PnP, or who don't care about stats. You have to allow, in a CRPG, for their ability to enjoy the game as well.
I also agree with @atcDave on the unnecessary 'Anything goes' strategy of 3E. it breaks the game in very fundamental ways in my view. In AD&D (2E and before), the game was set up to be optimal at 2 Fighter types, 1 Cleric, 1 Thief and 1 Wizard. Each class had a function in the game to play. In order to overcome "Most" dungeons there were challenges that required unique skill sets. this is no longer the case with 3E. Your characters can dip in and get thieving skills, or healing powers, or spell casting or combat in equal measure, thus invalidating the need for those other classes.
But more than that, every single character is kind of samey. There's nothing unique or original about being a paladin because any race or character can be that. Races no longer have strengths and weaknesses such that they are unique in play. Playing an Elf or a Dwarf play pretty much the same. Stats are all 'Balanced' as well so that no one stands out, and no one is left behind. Boring really.
Everything is leveled, and more importantly 'balanced' such that PvP is 'Fair'. this was hardly ever a factor in AD&D. we were too busy staying alive against monsters and solving quests to fight among ourselves. Early versions of the game were not about how to compete against our party members. It was about adventuring. I'd like to think that BG still has some of that.
And I just completely disagree on the dice rolling. You re-roll or don't re-roll just like anything else in a CRPG; don't like the result? Hit reload. Its a defining difference of CRPGs vs PNP.
Also I prefer point-buy because I know I'll always get a fair result and not wasting time rerolling to make the character I imagine.
If for example I want to make a Wizard that is wise but not charismatic, then I can max INT, put some into Wis and dump CHA.
That cannot really happen with rolling. So I have to accomodate to the whims of the dice instead of making the character I want to play.
For example:
"I want to be a Paladin!"
"Roll your dice"
*Rolls 11 for Charisma*
"..Hmm, too little Charisma, you'll have to be a Fighter"
And it's not always a power-gaming one as I dislike putting negatives into stats unless I can roleplay it and I am comfortable with any changes in the dialogue or his personality.
In 3.5E humans are arguably one of the best races around as they give pretty general but important bonuses.
And it made no sense in ADnD that dwarves couldn't be mages for example.
There was no ingame lore or explanation why they couldn't as far I'm concerned.
While it was flavorful, it was not believable or made any in character sense.
Also while the Elves were so in tune with nature, had nature gods (Rillfane Rallathil) and could become Rangers, they couldn't become Druids for no reason. Maybe with some kits, I think.
I like flavor but not when there's no explanation to that.
However, I think you really miss the point on random stats. All of my characters are role play only. If I want a Wizard that is high INT and low CHA, I can do that with random stat rolls as easily as with a stat buy system. A random roll system doesn't preclude moving stats from one STAT that I want to be low to another that I want to be high. it merely caps the total points in unusual ways.
But that's were random rolls shine in my view. I might end up with unusual rolls that I might not have thought were a good combination and then having to play that character. That is where the random roll system really shines. Because then I really have to find ways to play the role of a character that is not 'Balanced' or 'optimal'. Ever played a thief with a low STR, mediocre DEX and Low CHA? I have. And it was loads of fun. It's there that role play shines FAR over a flat point buy system.
Nuff said.
Ironically, our Rogue at our campaign rolled 6 STR, 17 DEX and 9 CHA.
I can appreciate the randomness of the dice if there's a way to prevent you from rerolling so many times.
For example I think in Temple of Elemental Evil on Ironman Mode, you were limited to a few or only one reroll or you had to live with the much fewer points of point-buy.
Something like that can work in video games.
The rolling dice part is not so bad to me, I can live with it. I'm just not a fan of limitations that are not justified.
Eh, we're basically saying here why oranges are better than bananas.
For me, it's a non issue. I don't re-roll ad-nausium until I get 94 or above. My Wizard had something like a 72 when all was said and done in my most recent play through with BG and that worked out just fine. some people will abuse the system, but then again, some people don't care about the PnP rules and just want a viable powerhouse character. Let em play that way if they like. And since I don't have to play WITH them, the fact that they can and do re-roll for ever until they get those crazy stats, doesn't bother me.
there's a lot to love about ToEE.
And yeah, were you see limitations, I see flavor. the fact elves make great archers and wizards and dwarves not so much, made so that if you played a dwarf, it felt very real and different than playing an elf. In 3E that is sadly no longer the case. That just doesn't sit right with me. But then, if it does with you, great. more power to you. Strength of the system(s).
Some think that the randomness of his spells (stats) add flavor and keep you on your toes. It adds challenge.
Others say that what good is a Mage that cannot control his spells? It can prove disastrous. (Bad rolls)
While I appreciate both sides, I am the type of person that wants to be in control of his character and his personality, than random dice rolls. Since I am creating everything about him and stats are basic elements of his personality.
So I rest my case here. There is no right answer by comparing two different things.
Though I wouldn't call point-buy stupid. It has it's place as it depends on you, how you want your character to be and not chance.
As for the rules, and again as a single player game, I want the rules to be baroque, quirky, and ultimately broken. If we were talking about a competitive multi-player game, then sure, strive for balance. Looking back at all of the truly great single player games, they have all been (in my experience) able to be completely and utterly broken wide the f--k open.
Word to the wise, game designers: don't worry too much about balance. Just throw cool stuff in, the more the better. Everyone complains about balance (esp. when they've become competent) but people love feeling clever (esp. when they aren't really). So-called broken systems allow people to be clever.