I am buying this for sure. Even if I am worried that the story line won't be on par with the classic titles, I still love the BG universe and am excited to see new content.
First game ever that I'm going to pre-order. After a slightly disappointing PoE, SoD is my only hope for a game that I would enjoy as much as I enjoyed BG2. I hope they have some flashy special edition with a lot of artwork/extras for a few extra quid. I want to support the studio and I want BG3 in the good old (but improved) Infinity Engine
Again we seen much of what Red Wizards are capable of as a group and it would make sense for story to continue there. Perhaps tie it into Neera's story where Red Wizards were trying to master chaos for their own ends. Also Thay is vastly different biome wise to places we have been, not snowy nor forest like, instead sprawling deserts and a group that everyone fears greatly. Red Wizards hold most power over Thay.
The problem is that a new BG will be D&DNext, which plays in a time where the Reddys changed pretty drastically.. I think BG3 should play in Baldurs Gate and let us fight against a newly forming Bhaal cult ^^ (..yeah, I want it to be a homage to BG1 while being also original ^^)
I don't believe this is true. I think that if Beamdog does a BG3 (and there's reason to believe that this won't happen since ToB sort of wrapped up the Bhaalspawn story arc rather neatly, but I suppose anything's possible), it'll stay within the quasi-2nd edition ruleset so that you can import your enhanced BG playthrough. There's no reason to change the ruleset if you're choosing to expand the BG experience.
Arcanis, from what I heard they would not be changing system, because they themselves know this system well and know we know it. They may perhaps go Icewind Dale route and go with third edition, that could be very likely.
If WotC were to approve a "new game" - as opposed to an Enhanced Edition or expansion, I would imagine they would want 5E rules used, not 3E. IWD2 used 3E rules because those rules were recently released (3E released in 2000, IWD2 in production in 2001).
For all intents and purposes, SoD is a "new game"; the line between a true "new game" and an "expansion" is fairly semantic, and the fact that WotC didn't insist upon an edition change here suggests to me that they wouldn't do this even if Beamdog did suggest a new game/sequel. I think WotC doesn't care what edition of the rules these games make use of; anything that gets out there under the D&D branding is ultimately good for them, regardless of the ruleset it's based on.
Again we seen much of what Red Wizards are capable of as a group and it would make sense for story to continue there. Perhaps tie it into Neera's story where Red Wizards were trying to master chaos for their own ends. Also Thay is vastly different biome wise to places we have been, not snowy nor forest like, instead sprawling deserts and a group that everyone fears greatly. Red Wizards hold most power over Thay.
The problem is that a new BG will be D&DNext, which plays in a time where the Reddys changed pretty drastically.. I think BG3 should play in Baldurs Gate and let us fight against a newly forming Bhaal cult ^^ (..yeah, I want it to be a homage to BG1 while being also original ^^)
I don't believe this is true. I think that if Beamdog does a BG3 (and there's reason to believe that this won't happen since ToB sort of wrapped up the Bhaalspawn story arc rather neatly, but I suppose anything's possible), it'll stay within the quasi-2nd edition ruleset so that you can import your enhanced BG playthrough. There's no reason to change the ruleset if you're choosing to expand the BG experience.
There is a reason: Wizards of the Coast. It is nearly a miracle that they are even allowed to create an add-on, but a completly new entry? D&D next it is. WotC will *never* allow a new game within D&D that won't have the current D&D rules. This is actually there official stance. Also, Beamdog said a loong while ago that they would use 5 for a new BG (I think it was somewhere in the AdvY threat). The saga of charname is completly and utterly over after (maybe) 1 add-on between SoA and ToB. If they want to use the name Baldurs Gate for a new game it should have some connection to the Bhaalspawn saga (Bhaal is back, so it is possible) and - even more important- a connection to Baldurs Gate - thus my idea.
There is a reason: Wizards of the Coast. It is nearly a miracle that they are even allowed to create an add-on, but a completly new entry? D&D next it is. WotC will *never* allow a new game within D&D that won't have the current D&D rules. This is actually there official stance. Also, Beamdog said a loong while ago that they would use 5 for a new BG (I think it was somewhere in the AdvY threat). The saga of charname is completly and utterly over after (maybe) 1 add-on between SoA and ToB. If they want to use the name Baldurs Gate for a new game it should have some connection to the Bhaalspawn saga (Bhaal is back, so it is possible) and - even more important- a connection to Baldurs Gate - thus my idea.
Do you have some citation of this?
Don't get me wrong, I'm no WotC apologist. I'm a die-hard 2nd edition/AD&D gamer, and I've had my share of colorful commentary over the years where it comes to Wizard$ of the Coa$t. But consider the following evidence drawn solely from what's observable from the surface:
•Back in the day, they allowed BG2 and ToB to be made without an edition change. There were some concessions made (Half-Orcs, Barbarians, Monks, Sorcerers, and ToB's Feat-esque HLAs), but the game's core mechanics (rooted in 2nd edition AD&D) remained mostly the same in the sequel. (the addition of Kits in BG2 was even an example of doubling down on 2nd edition mechanics and terminology)
•All of Beamdog's websites use the modern "Dungeons & Dragons" logo. It's true that this may be a sign of WotC wanting to push a 5e game out of Beamdog eventually, but I read it more optimistically: since 5e books are what are being sold right now, I don't think WotC is so insecure about its product line that it would try to arm-twist Beamdog if they wanted to pitch a new game using BG2's engine with 2nd ed rules. (especially since, when it comes right down to it, 5e rules are slightly closer to 2nd ed than they are to 3rd or 4th ed anyway) I genuinely think WotC would be happy to see any game come out that flies the Dungeons & Dragons banner, whatever edition it uses: it still promotes the core product.
•Siege of Dragonspear got the go ahead with 2nd ed rules. What this says to me is that sales of IEEE (aiee?) games are good enough that Wizards are fine with new non-5e games.
Ultimately, the edition a game uses doesn't matter. If Beamdog ever turned its attention toward updating NWN or IWD2, they'd probably use the 3rd ed ruleset and it would *still* promote D&D generally and *still* put some coin in WotC's pocket. I think WotC realizes this and, again, speaking entirely without having seen anything to the contrary, would be okay allowing a BG3 (using the current BG:EE engine and ruleset) to come into existence. (plus, NWN had problems that went FAR deeper than its use of 3rd ed rules...)
I believe that a special exception was made for Siege of Dragonspear because it's a direct non-standalone expansion to a game that in it's original release used 2e rules. While I don't recall any official statement on this matter the only time I recall a new D&D computer game that did not use the then current edition of the D&D rules has been when the game was either had obviously long been in development before the edition change or it was a direct non-standalone expansion of game that used the rules of that earlier edition.
Yes; I recall that BG2 was released in Sep 2000 after the release of the 3e Player's Handbook at the previous GenCon in Aug, the Monster Manual was released that same month as BG2 & the DM's Guide the following month. BioWare obviously didn't code the game in a month, they started development in Jan 1999 before the release of TotSC the following April. http://www.ign.com/articles/1999/11/24/developer-journal-baldurs-gate-ii-pt-1
•Back in the day, they allowed BG2 and ToB to be made without an edition change. There were some concessions made (Half-Orcs, Barbarians, Monks, Sorcerers, and ToB's Feat-esque HLAs), but the game's core mechanics (rooted in 2nd edition AD&D) remained mostly the same in the sequel.
I was also a die-hard 2e AD&D gamer back in the 90s. Do you recall the 2e origins of most of those examples you listed?
Many of those things are actually from 1st edition. Half Orcs where a core race, Monk was an optional class, and there was a barbarian class somewhere in supplemental material too.
after the writing failures and integration inconsistencies of the new npc's in BG2:EE i will be very, very careful.
i'm very glad for the various tweaks, enhancements and new life that enhanced editions gave to bg series, but i'll definitely wait for reactions before and if i buy SoD.
after the writing failures and integration inconsistencies of the new npc's in BG2:EE i will be very, very careful.
Pretty much my take. I acknowledge that they're at least making more than a token effort for story content this time around - and Chris Avellone's endorsement counts for a lot - but the track record is what it is.
Again we seen much of what Red Wizards are capable of as a group and it would make sense for story to continue there. Perhaps tie it into Neera's story where Red Wizards were trying to master chaos for their own ends. Also Thay is vastly different biome wise to places we have been, not snowy nor forest like, instead sprawling deserts and a group that everyone fears greatly. Red Wizards hold most power over Thay.
The problem is that a new BG will be D&DNext, which plays in a time where the Reddys changed pretty drastically.. I think BG3 should play in Baldurs Gate and let us fight against a newly forming Bhaal cult ^^ (..yeah, I want it to be a homage to BG1 while being also original ^^)
I don't believe this is true. I think that if Beamdog does a BG3 (and there's reason to believe that this won't happen since ToB sort of wrapped up the Bhaalspawn story arc rather neatly, but I suppose anything's possible), it'll stay within the quasi-2nd edition ruleset so that you can import your enhanced BG playthrough. There's no reason to change the ruleset if you're choosing to expand the BG experience.
I remember Beamdog saying something along the lines of SoD (and a possible expansion between SoA and ToB) being the last games they will make with the IE and they are moving to a new engine for their next full game. So if they end up doing BG3 I would not be surprised if it is 5E and set long enough after ToB that they don't have to worry about importing items. Although this may have been in reference to the now canceled "shark trap" (or was it "bear trap") project that was not even an RPG.
Many of those things are actually from 1st edition. Half Orcs where a core race, Monk was an optional class, and there was a barbarian class somewhere in supplemental material too.
I've been playing D&D since I requested & received the Meztner red box as a gift in 1983, so yes I realize that the items in that list appeared in D&D previous to 2e.
• Half-Orcs were first mentioned in the 1e Monster Manual '77 and were described as a PC race in the 1e Player's Handbook '78.
• Barbarians were first described as a class in Dragon Magazine #63 July '82 & included in 1e Unearthed Arcana '85.
• Monks were first described as a class in 0e Supplement II: Blackmoor '75 and appeared again for 1e in the Player's Handbook & Oriental Adventures '85.
• Sorcerers Given Gary Gygax's publicly stated distaste for non-Vancian spell systems, I don't believe a 1e Sorcerer-like character class or a spell point system was ever published by TSR. Many "Fantasy Heart-Breaker" D&D-like games of the time, that were often D&D house rules with the "serial numbers filed-off", such as David Hargrave's Arduin Grimoire, did though.
Oh, something I should probably mention: Siege of Dragonspear is an expansion, not a stand-alone game. So if you bought BG:EE from GOG, you'll probably want to pick up SoD there as well, when it finds its way there.
• Sorcerers Given Gary Gygax's publicly stated distaste for non-Vancian spell systems, I don't believe a 1e Sorcerer-like character class or a spell point system was ever published by TSR. Many "Fantasy Heart-Breaker" D&D-like games of the time, that were often D&D house rules with the "serial numbers filed-off", such as David Hargrave's Arduin Grimoire, did though.
TSR did: Player's Option: Spells & Magic, by Rich Baker, 1996.
Of course, that was over 10 years after EGG left TSR.
I would buy it but don't think I can stand to again. I play BGEE and the rest because they are the only game in town but to any reasoning being the games are programed to cheat the crap out of the players. I guess its easier to cheat in a fight than to do the work and make it interesting. No one can look at the die rolls in any of the Bioware games and come to any other conclusion.
I would buy it but don't think I can stand to again. I play BGEE and the rest because they are the only game in town but to any reasoning being the games are programed to cheat the crap out of the players. I guess its easier to cheat in a fight than to do the work and make it interesting. No one can look at the die rolls in any of the Bioware games and come to any other conclusion.
Wait what? That's odd, maybe you're just extremely unlucky. The dice rolls are random as they should be and in BGEE you miss a lot because your THAC0 is trash. Did you finish the game? Are you still playing? What level are you? What's your party composition? The one thing the BG series is NOT is unfair, there is a answer to every challenge the games throws at you, it's up to you to figure out what that answer is.
I believe in them, I believe they learn from past mistake, and it seem like it will be great game.
Well, part of the problem was an impatient publisher and as far as I know IWD:EE was bug-free (didn't play it myself, I never really got into the original =/), so I trust their coding & debugging teams ^^.
IWD:EE had a beautiful release. Very very few bugs. Worked like a charm.
IWD:EE had a beautiful release. Very very few bugs. Worked like a charm.
It also had the least contributions from Beamdog in terms of story content.
The main problem of BGEE & BG2EE where the bugs. The writing was hit or miss, depending on *personal* opinion, like ..actually most of the original cast. It certainly is no Shakespear, but the writing is not bad and up to the BG2 standart imho. Some characters are better, some are not so good, but I think everything was pretty solid, so I have little fear that SoD will be enjoyable.
As for BG3 enthusiasts, all I ask is that you remember this:
Wizards of the Coast say Abdel Adrian is canon.
Ask yourself if you want a BG3 where that is set in stone.
True, but the "canon Minsc" is now bald, as shown in the comic (unlike The Novel That Shall Not Be Named, where he has red hair). So, this could mean that the "canon Abdel" is not the novelization Abdel...
Perhaps the novels took place in an alternate dimension, like Marvel's Earth-2122. Abeir-Toril-666 or something like that.
Comments
It is nearly a miracle that they are even allowed to create an add-on, but a completly new entry?
D&D next it is. WotC will *never* allow a new game within D&D that won't have the current D&D rules.
This is actually there official stance. Also, Beamdog said a loong while ago that they would use 5 for a
new BG (I think it was somewhere in the AdvY threat).
The saga of charname is completly and utterly over after (maybe) 1 add-on between SoA and ToB.
If they want to use the name Baldurs Gate for a new game it should have some connection to the
Bhaalspawn saga (Bhaal is back, so it is possible) and - even more important- a connection to
Baldurs Gate - thus my idea.
Don't get me wrong, I'm no WotC apologist. I'm a die-hard 2nd edition/AD&D gamer, and I've had my share of colorful commentary over the years where it comes to Wizard$ of the Coa$t. But consider the following evidence drawn solely from what's observable from the surface:
•Back in the day, they allowed BG2 and ToB to be made without an edition change. There were some concessions made (Half-Orcs, Barbarians, Monks, Sorcerers, and ToB's Feat-esque HLAs), but the game's core mechanics (rooted in 2nd edition AD&D) remained mostly the same in the sequel. (the addition of Kits in BG2 was even an example of doubling down on 2nd edition mechanics and terminology)
•All of Beamdog's websites use the modern "Dungeons & Dragons" logo. It's true that this may be a sign of WotC wanting to push a 5e game out of Beamdog eventually, but I read it more optimistically: since 5e books are what are being sold right now, I don't think WotC is so insecure about its product line that it would try to arm-twist Beamdog if they wanted to pitch a new game using BG2's engine with 2nd ed rules. (especially since, when it comes right down to it, 5e rules are slightly closer to 2nd ed than they are to 3rd or 4th ed anyway) I genuinely think WotC would be happy to see any game come out that flies the Dungeons & Dragons banner, whatever edition it uses: it still promotes the core product.
•Siege of Dragonspear got the go ahead with 2nd ed rules. What this says to me is that sales of IEEE (aiee?) games are good enough that Wizards are fine with new non-5e games.
Ultimately, the edition a game uses doesn't matter. If Beamdog ever turned its attention toward updating NWN or IWD2, they'd probably use the 3rd ed ruleset and it would *still* promote D&D generally and *still* put some coin in WotC's pocket. I think WotC realizes this and, again, speaking entirely without having seen anything to the contrary, would be okay allowing a BG3 (using the current BG:EE engine and ruleset) to come into existence. (plus, NWN had problems that went FAR deeper than its use of 3rd ed rules...)
Yes; I recall that BG2 was released in Sep 2000 after the release of the 3e Player's Handbook at the previous GenCon in Aug, the Monster Manual was released that same month as BG2 & the DM's Guide the following month. BioWare obviously didn't code the game in a month, they started development in Jan 1999 before the release of TotSC the following April.
http://www.ign.com/articles/1999/11/24/developer-journal-baldurs-gate-ii-pt-1 I was also a die-hard 2e AD&D gamer back in the 90s. Do you recall the 2e origins of most of those examples you listed?
• Half-Orcs PHBR10 The Complete Book of Humanoids Bill Slavicsek 1993 http://www.drivethrurpg.com/product/16998/PHBR10-The-Complete-Book-of-Humanoids-2e?manufacturers_id=44&it=1 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Complete_Book_of_Humanoids
• Barbarians PHBR1 The Complete Fighter's Handbook Aaron Allston 1989 http://www.drivethrurpg.com/product_info.php?products_id=16885&it=1 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Complete_Fighter's_Handbook
PHBR14 The Complete Barbarian's Handbook Rick Swan 1995 http://www.amazon.com/Complete-Barbarians-Handbook-Players-Supplement/dp/0786900903 http://www.trollandtoad.com/p115353.html
• Monks PHBR3 The Complete Priest's Handbook Aaron Allston 1990 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Complete_Priest's_Handbook http://www.drivethrurpg.com/product_info.php?products_id=16888&it=1
9519 Faiths & Avatars Julia Martin and Eric L. Boyd 1996 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faiths_&_Avatars http://www.drivethrurpg.com/product/17569/Faiths--Avatars-2e?manufacturers_id=44&it=1
TSR11374 The Scarlet Brotherhood Sean K Reynolds 1999 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Scarlet_Brotherhood http://www.drivethrurpg.com/product/17402/The-Scarlet-Brotherhood-2e?manufacturers_id=44&it=1
• Sorcerers Obviously the class was back-ported from 3e, but there was a very similar "Free Magics" spontaneous spell casting variant based on spell points that appeared in 2163 Player's Option: Spells & Magic Richard Baker 1996 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Player's_Option:_Spells_&_Magic http://www.drivethrurpg.com/product/16864/Players-Option--Spells--Magic-2e?manufacturers_id=44&it=1
The Weave Access spell casting rules for the Acanist class was also mechanically very similar as described in 1147 Netheril: Empire of Magic 1996 http://www.amazon.com/Netheril-Advanced-Dungeons-Dragons-Forgotten/dp/0786904372 http://forgottenrealms.wikia.com/wiki/Netheril:_Empire_of_Magic
• HLAs Many of the High Level Abilities were directly taken from the descriptions in 2156 Dungeon Master Option: High-Level Campaigns Skip Williams 1995 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dungeon_Master_Option:_High-Level_Campaigns http://www.amazon.com/Dungeon-Master-Option-High-Level-Campaigns/dp/0786901683
Also many of the changes of 3e were previously published as part of the 2e Player's Option or Dungeon Master Option books.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Player's_Option:_Combat_&_Tactics https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Player's_Option:_Skills_&_Powers https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Player's_Option:_Spells_&_Magic https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dungeon_Master's_Option:_High-Level_Campaigns
i'm very glad for the various tweaks, enhancements and new life that enhanced editions gave to bg series, but i'll definitely wait for reactions before and if i buy SoD.
most likely i'll wait for a discount.
• Half-Orcs were first mentioned in the 1e Monster Manual '77 and were described as a PC race in the 1e Player's Handbook '78.
• Barbarians were first described as a class in Dragon Magazine #63 July '82 & included in 1e Unearthed Arcana '85.
• Monks were first described as a class in 0e Supplement II: Blackmoor '75 and appeared again for 1e in the Player's Handbook & Oriental Adventures '85.
• Sorcerers Given Gary Gygax's publicly stated distaste for non-Vancian spell systems, I don't believe a 1e Sorcerer-like character class or a spell point system was ever published by TSR. Many "Fantasy Heart-Breaker" D&D-like games of the time, that were often D&D house rules with the "serial numbers filed-off", such as David Hargrave's Arduin Grimoire, did though.
Of course, that was over 10 years after EGG left TSR.
That's odd, maybe you're just extremely unlucky.
The dice rolls are random as they should be and in BGEE you miss a lot because your THAC0 is trash. Did you finish the game? Are you still playing? What level are you? What's your party composition?
The one thing the BG series is NOT is unfair, there is a answer to every challenge the games throws at you, it's up to you to figure out what that answer is.
The writing was hit or miss, depending on *personal* opinion, like ..actually most of the original cast.
It certainly is no Shakespear, but the writing is not bad and up to the BG2 standart imho.
Some characters are better, some are not so good, but I think everything was pretty solid, so I have
little fear that SoD will be enjoyable.
Wizards of the Coast say Abdel Adrian is canon.
Ask yourself if you want a BG3 where that is set in stone.
Perhaps the novels took place in an alternate dimension, like Marvel's Earth-2122. Abeir-Toril-666 or something like that.
Just wishful thinkin'...