Skip to content

Which D&D ruleset should BG3 be based upon?

StormvesselStormvessel Member Posts: 654
edited May 2014 in General Discussion (Spoiler Warning!)
I realize that Baldur's Gate III hasn't even been announced and that this kind of talk is mere speculation, but I am still very interested in what the Baldur's Gate community thinks about this. Personally, I think BG3 should either be based upon AD&D 2.5 (like it's predecessors) or it shouldn't be based upon D&D at all. In a way I think D&D is very restrictive for a CRPG and that by creating an in house system BG3 could have more potential.

What do you think?
  1. Which D&D ruleset should BG3 be based upon?84 votes
    1. D&D 2nd edition revised (2.5E)
      39.29%
    2. D&D 3rd edition revised (3.5E)
      26.19%
    3. D&D 4th edition
        1.19%
    4. D&D 5th edition (upcoming)
      15.48%
    5. D&D is too restrictive - it should be based upon a newly created in-house system
        7.14%
    6. Other
      10.71%
«13

Comments

  • ItstucktwiceItstucktwice Member Posts: 182
    3.5 is best, and I think if there were to be a BG3, it would be a nice change of pace while still not butchering a franchise. My second choice would be 2.5.
  • CatoblepasCatoblepas Member Posts: 96
    3.5 and 2.5 are tried and true rulesets IMO, and have the benefit of being tied chronologically to the most popular periods of Forgotten Realms, so I'd take a game that used 3.5 or 2.5-lorewise or mechanics-wise over one that used 4.0 or 5.0 any day.
  • ZyzzogetonZyzzogeton Member Posts: 526
    3.5e, is D&D streamlined, scaled properly. Restrictions that should be penalties are actually penalties . My only issue with it is the leveling thing in relation to multiclass.

    But I'll still take that single negative over the patchy feeling I get from 2.5e (exceptional Strength, lol) and those restrictions. Ugh.
  • SCARY_WIZARDSCARY_WIZARD Member Posts: 1,438
    It should be based on the 1974 rules, with just Clerics, Fighters, and Magic-Users. Thieves ruined the game, they're just Fighters with lockpicks.

    ...no, I think it should be based on Advanced Dungeons & Dragons 2nd Edition, with Player's Option stuff! Or v3.5 D&D.
  • badbromancebadbromance Member Posts: 238
    Anything but 3.5/Pathfinder please!
  • LathlaerLathlaer Member Posts: 475
    I want to be able to create my elven paladin without resorting to EE Keeper, so 3.5. They could take what has been done in IWD2 and be a bit bolder, go a bit further.
  • StormvesselStormvessel Member Posts: 654
    edited May 2014
    I voted for 2.5 because I hate the way ability scores work in later editions.
    Post edited by Stormvessel on
  • jackjackjackjack Member Posts: 3,251
    edited May 2014
    I feel the need to qualify my vote by saying I am largely uninformed as to the details of 5E. Once I get to know it better, it's entirely possible I'd prefer it.
    But until that day… Get off my lawn!
  • LathlaerLathlaer Member Posts: 475
    I could work with 2.5 if they got rid of all those stupid requirements. If humans could multiclass and elves dual class and Mazzy could be a paladin, then yeah.
  • artificial_sunlightartificial_sunlight Member Posts: 601
    D&D Next, for lore and basic rules, 3,5 or 5e for stats and combat rules
  • StormvesselStormvessel Member Posts: 654
    edited May 2014
    Lathlaer said:

    I could work with 2.5 if they got rid of all those stupid requirements. If humans could multiclass and elves dual class and Mazzy could be a paladin, then yeah.

    If Elves could dual-class that would pretty much ensure all I would ever play is elves. Can you imagine a dual-classed Elven archer/cleric with 18/00 str and GM in slings? Scary.
  • LathlaerLathlaer Member Posts: 475
    edited May 2014
    @Stormvessel‌ I am sorry, but how is that more powerful than a human with the same setup? Is this +1 Dex really that much of a difference?

    Besiders, if you put it that way, you should only play sorcerers :)

    As BG paperdolls are simply awful, I mostly relate to my characters through pictures I find on the web. I have several hundreds of them and many have sparked an idea for new character. If I see a beatiful elven woman who is dressed in armor and screams "paladin" to me, I want to make an elven paladin.

    Right now I either have to make her human which seems wrong since her pointy ears are clearly visible, or use the EE Keeper. Which isn't the way in the long run.

    So yeah, powergamers might rejoice but since BG has already plethora of powergaming material for them, I hardly think it would make a more than cosmetic change in terms of game balance.
  • CrevsDaakCrevsDaak Member Posts: 7,155
    I prefer 2E AD&D, but this one was the closest option.
    I won't feel right playing BG3 with 3.5E or some other edition of the D&D rules.
    As for IWD I can't say as I only played the first until you reach the village of Khulanadar (or however it's written).
  • FrostyFrosty Member Posts: 190
    I really like 3.5 and 2.5, but I hated 3.0 and 4.0 so I hope the next version fixed 4.0 the way 3.5 fixed 3.0.
  • BelanosBelanos Member Posts: 968
    edited May 2014
    There isn't any choice in the matter, Wizard's of the Coast would insist on the game using the most recent version.
  • jackjackjackjack Member Posts: 3,251
    Belanos said:

    There isn't any choice in the matter, Wizard's of the Coast would insist on the game using the most recent version.

    I think most, if not all of us are aware of this. OP seems to be asking everyone's preferences.
  • StormvesselStormvessel Member Posts: 654
    edited May 2014
    Belanos said:

    There isn't any choice in the matter, Wizard's of the Coast would insist on the game using the most recent version.

    Which is one of the reasons I added the no D&D option. Depending on how the 5th Edition works out maybe Beamdog should forego the WotC license and build an inhouse system specifically for Baldur's Gate III, sort of the way Bioware did with Dragon Age.
  • BGLoverBGLover Member Posts: 550
    As WotC wouldn't realistically allow any option to use anything other than the most recent version of D&D, I voted for the option to give up on any license and develop in-house IP.

    And this of course would mean no BG3....

    But it would also open up the possibility of a brave new world, which whilst fraught with all sorts of uncertainties and worries, is an exciting prospect full of wonderous potential!

  • AstroBryGuyAstroBryGuy Member Posts: 3,437
    Why no options for OD&D, Basic D&D, or AD&D 1st Edition? ;-)
  • StormvesselStormvessel Member Posts: 654
    edited May 2014
    AstroBryGuy said:

    Why no options for OD&D, Basic D&D, or AD&D 1st Edition? ;-)

    Yea that's not going to happen. A Baldur's Gate game without dual and multiclassing?
  • LemernisLemernis Member, Moderator Posts: 4,318
    edited May 2014
    Ideally? I'd love to see what the Infinity engine gave us, including its ruleset, redesigned from the ground up with today's technology. With the other CRPG games I played over the years, none has ever come even close to being as satisfying to me as the BG series' rendition of 2nd edition AD&D. I want thac0, kits, all that. Everything comes together so brilliantly for gameplay in the BG series--so why not give me more of what I love? Obviously now it will be in HD, which is great. Naturally, I want it 2D/isometric with richly painted backgrounds. Just created with today's superior tools.

    Realistically? Wizards of the Coast will probably want to make it D&D Next. But I hope they will allow the devs to twist and bend D&D Next to resemble 2nd edition AD&D every bit as much as possible.
    Post edited by Lemernis on
  • LemernisLemernis Member, Moderator Posts: 4,318
    edited May 2014
    I'll add that the innovation that I want to see with BG3 is for it to have AI for NPCs that has them behave independently, and at times unpredictably. Not in terms of combat--there the player will still control them. But in terms of relationship to one another and to the story. Let them have a life of their own that grows organically within the game, and offers challenges and opportunities of its own.
    Post edited by Lemernis on
  • FrecheFreche Member Posts: 473
    Stormvessel said:

    Belanos said:

    There isn't any choice in the matter, Wizard's of the Coast would insist on the game using the most recent version.

    Which is one of the reasons I added the no D&D option. Depending on how the 5th Edition works out maybe Beamdog should forego the WotC license and build an inhouse system specifically for Baldur's Gate III, sort of the way Bioware did with Dragon Age.
    Except then it woudn't be BG3.

    Personally I don't want to see a BG3, I rather see a new IP with a proper ruleset designed for it.
    D&D might be good for P&P (I have never played d&d), but I find it's rather bad for computer games.
  • StormvesselStormvessel Member Posts: 654
    edited May 2014
    Freche said:

    Stormvessel said:

    Belanos said:

    There isn't any choice in the matter, Wizard's of the Coast would insist on the game using the most recent version.

    Which is one of the reasons I added the no D&D option. Depending on how the 5th Edition works out maybe Beamdog should forego the WotC license and build an inhouse system specifically for Baldur's Gate III, sort of the way Bioware did with Dragon Age.
    Except then it woudn't be BG3.

    Personally I don't want to see a BG3, I rather see a new IP with a proper ruleset designed for it.
    D&D might be good for P&P (I have never played d&d), but I find it's rather bad for computer games.
    Maybe bad for real-time computer games. In any case, you should try Temple of Elemental Evil. It's based completely on the 3rd edition ruleset and everytime you do battle the game basically turns into a D&D gameboard (totally turn and tile based). By far the most faithful D&D transition ever on PC. I find that with the Circle of the Eight mod it works very well.
  • LemernisLemernis Member, Moderator Posts: 4,318
    edited May 2014
    There's no way BG3 gets made except with Atari/WotC's approval and oversight. :-)

    But think of it this way. The BG series was a roaring success--that is indsiputable. So why not remake what is ostensibly a sure thing? Let a whole new generation of gamers discover the brilliance that is BG's gaming system (the Infinity ruleset) by reinventing basically the same type of game, except with excellent graphics.
  • smeagolheartsmeagolheart Member Posts: 7,964
    Beamdog wouldn't get a choice in which rule set they use. They have said they must use whatever WOTC wants them to use as part of the license. So D&D 4 now or Next later. No 3.5 which would be my choice as well.
  • ZyzzogetonZyzzogeton Member Posts: 526
    A good portion of the stuff people praised about BG is irrelevant of the ruleset it uses.

    BG could have used a unique ruleset and you'd still have the same NPC stuff happening. Does it really matter to Jaheira's romance if she used mana points instead of spell slots?
Sign In or Register to comment.

2025 Overhaul Games, a division of Beamdog. © 2025 Hasbro, Inc. All Rights Reserved. Baldur's Gate, Dungeons & Dragons, D&D, Forgotten Realms, Baldur's Gate, Wizards of the Coast and their logos are trademarks of Wizards of the Coast LLC in the U.S.A. and other countries, and are used with permission. Hasbro and its logo are trademarks of Hasbro, Inc. and are used with permission. © 1998 BioWare Corp. All Rights Reserved. BioWare, the BioWare Infinity Engine and the BioWare logo are trademarks of Bioware Corp. Black Isle Studios and the Black Isle Studios logo are trademarks of Interplay Entertainment Corp. Atari and the Atari logo are trademarks owned by Atari Interactive, Inc. All other trademarks are the property of their respective owners.