Yes, Corwin was fine. Likable and belivable. We have seen her like before, but on cop shows, not in fantasy games. Much better than the one-note "look at me, I'm insane" npcs of BG1.
Tell me why there are no wizards, orcs or gibberlings in the latest episode of CSI Detective. Could it be that they would be jarringly out of place in that genre?
And if you do introduce them, which can be done with better writing, you don't place them in 20/21C America with the social mores of 20/21C America.
And as for NPC's in BG being insane. Don't you think, given the setting, being insane is actually normal? Is it insane to raise the dead, turn undead, kill any who oppose you, venture into dungeons full of monsters, chat to Gods? It would be nowadays, FR not so sure.
Cop shows are written to reflect our modern world. We don't have orcs and goblins in this world, so of course you wouldn't expect them.
But a fantasy realm's rules are all set by the author in whatever way they want. So if the author wants to write about a single mom working for a justice system within their world, there's nothing stopping them. It's their choice.
No one should feel they shouldn't write X character type because "the genre doesn't allow it". Especially in the fantasy genre, where we can have fire-breathing lizards and winged lions and blue people with fins and two heads.
I don't even consider fantasy to be a genre. It's really a setting. You can have action/adventure, military fiction, murder mysteries, and so on. One of my favorite fantasy series is Simon R. Green's Guards of Haven, which is pretty much Hill Street Blues: Lankhmar. So the idea of a cop/single mom character in the FR doesn't really seem out of place.
And conversely, the detective/cop story can take place in any setting. I have read quite a few with fantasy settings, such as Terry Pratchett's Watch stories. Ben Aaronovich's Rivers of London novels are cop stories set in modern London, but feature wizards and fairies.
Not that I have read anything in the FR campaign setting that suggests that working single mothers are at all rare, or that the entire population of the Sword Coast is certifiably insane.
Tell me why there are no wizards, orcs or gibberlings in the latest episode of CSI Detective. Could it be that they would be jarringly out of place in that genre?
And if you do introduce them, which can be done with better writing, you don't place them in 20/21C America with the social mores of 20/21C America.
And as for NPC's in BG being insane. Don't you think, given the setting, being insane is actually normal? Is it insane to raise the dead, turn undead, kill any who oppose you, venture into dungeons full of monsters, chat to Gods? It would be nowadays, FR not so sure.
Didn't see this but it possibly gets to the crux of my problem with Corwin.
How can she be a "normal person" as we judge, in a setting that would never and cannot produce our normalcy? She is normal in our view, but our view/world does not exist in game.
This is so odd. Do you sincerely think that every single person in BG is "insane" by our modern day standards? You do realize you meet a ton of "normal" characters everywhere, all the time, like guards or other adventurers, right? Adding a less extraordinary and more down to earth NPC was a really good call IMHO, since it was a 'road less traveled' in the genre.
I would suggest that or hypothetical game should include a balanced mix of character types, from "normal" to "loony", then allow players the freedom to reject the characters that they don't like.
That brings us back to the real issue of the total number of companions available. Nine seems to have become something of an industry standard (as well as having literary significance), but party size is usually smaller (3 or 4). With a party size of 6, you can't avoid having at least one overlapping character on each playthrough, unless you follow PoE and have a "create your own companion" option.
Now, I am pretty sure Beamdog have nothing like the resources that where thrown at the companions in DAI, so we will have to assume that they can't have that level of complexity, especially if there are more than nine. I think most of us are agreed that we don't want/need companions to be fully voiced, so that is one area where savings can be made.
Personally, I wouldn't mind if the party size was less than 6. I don't usually have more than four players in my PnP games.
Personally, I wouldn't mind if the party size was less than 6. I don't usually have more than four players in my PnP games.
Have to jump in on this. A huge part of my enjoyment of a crpg is with respect to my party of companions: interracting with them, roleplaying with them, optimally equipping them, leveling them up, etc. Therefore, by definition, the smaller the party size the exponentially less my enjoyment of the game, to the point where I cannot truly enjoy a non-party-based rpg (like The Elder Scrolls games, for example).
If the game has a party size of six, someone who only wants to have a party of three or four can still have what they want. But if the game's party size is three or four, those of us who get so much enjoyment from that larger party size are denied what we want.
He sure does. I browsed through the 15 pages of this topic and made a list in excel with all the things mentioned.
Some points before reading: 1) I only took the comments of people who made actual lists (either with numbers or bullets or -'s). 2) When people had more than 3 points, I took the first 3. 3) If people had 1 bullet-point with "isometric, RTwP, 5e edition" I scored in all three categories. 4) I tried to notice if someone had already posted, not sure if I covered that 100%. 5) I tried to condense some categories, so the numbers are a bit arbitrarily constructed. 6) Sometimes I had to choose where to put a certain point. Companions (w interesting stories) 29 Great/Immersive story 27 Consequences/Choices/Reactivity/Replayability 25 Isometric 20 Compelling world 12 Good/Correct lore (loads of it) and rules 12 Moddable (tools, easily done) 11 Character Customization (creation/levelling choices) 10 FR setting / new location not visited before 9 5th edition 9 RTwP 8 Wide open chapter/Exploration/Sense of adventure/Mystery 8 Romance 7 Tactical control of companions (party of six, scripts, tactics) 6 DM mode/toolset a la NWN 6 Tactical battles (battle manouevres/smooth combat) 5 Infinity-like engine 5 Skill/ability/stat checks in conversations 5 Good quest design 5 Dragons (fighting and interacting) / Dragonborns 4 Antagonist not threatening armageddon/not saving the world/more personal 4 Fun gameplay/dialogues 3 Evil just as important as good 3 BG2 scale of content / or bigger 3 No romances 3 Illithids/Mind Flayers/Psionics 3 Persistant world (MP) 3 Good writing 3 No real-world issues in the game 3 Decouple aligment/reputation / ethics system 2 More gnomes (females, undead) 2 No three-their dialogue limit 2 Useful magic/skills outside of combat 2 Limited rate of progression / Low level campaign 2 More conventional characters instead of all special snowflakes 2 Extensive deity system 2 Special weapons 2 Gazebos Werebears Annoying the French Items Ferrets Cookies Backstabbing Ferrets with cookies Druids Rich Functionality No time refreshing skills Companions don't heal after battle Tablet version Swimming mechanics Climbing mechanics Animal companions No Dexterity-based combat (player-wise) Believable thief quests Well thought design of IWD Great music Splendid background images No boss monsters with immunity to every disabler Charname is not a 'Chosen one' No drow Healers with bows and swords Crafting/Forging system Balance Short prologue Fantasy environment level design 3D/Aurora Engine like Good resource management Quickbar Not about Bhaal Turn-based Unity engine More than 6 party members More race options Multi-player main campaign co-op Sorceror-like class Many monsters Different setting (Ravenloft) AD&D Ruleset Stronghold Player can fail Avoid overcomplicated companion quests Extensive magic system Scarce economy Dark Tone
1. Party size of 6 (with a variety of detailed recruitable NPC's, each with different and rich interactions and stories) 2. Meaningful but restricted choices over starting races and classes, and not everything being balanced! Too many games these days seem to suffer from allowing you to be anything you want, but with this broadening choice your actual choices seem to be diminished - as whatever you choose essentially boils down to the same end result, balanced to such an extent that everything ends up a bland unappealing beige. A bit better on this means a bit worse on that etc. Plus one here means minus one there. And so on. No, no no! Not all classes have to be balanced. Some should be more powerful than others. Some should be more challenging. And some choices shouldn't be allowed at all. 3. An engaging story/plot.
We have a small chance of seeing the Death Cleric and Oathbreaker Paladin from the DMG and probably an even less chance of seeing stuff like the Swashbuckler or bladesinger from the Sword Coast Adventurer's Guide.
I'm actually very surprised Sword Coast Legendd shipped with as few options as it did.
For the sake of argument, let's pretend we were making a D&D game of some kind.
What would be your top-three list of things you absolutely, positively would need to see present in that game -- whether it be in the story or the feature list?
About 12 years ago @David_Gaider asked a similar question on the Bioware Dragon Age boards, when the game was still several years from being released... I answered something to the effect of hoping for a lore-rich, immersive story line that would span over multiple games and be true to the roots of what made Baldur's Gate II so amazing. I doubt he remembers as it was a long time ago, but he responded I would not be disappointed... Well, I wasn't disappointed with Origins or any of the DLC content, but I've never been able to complete DAII and never bought DAIII because the gameplay was just awful IMO. The story itself in DAII was fine for me, but the battle mechanics just turned me off as it seemed way to MMO/WoW with all of the cooldowns and everything. I hope for anything Beamdog makes that they stay true to the genre and not try to go down the path of MMO's (even if they make an MMO). I love the D&D 5e mechanics that I have seen so far as it has brought power levels in line to where things do not become insane, like they did in 3.x and 4e. I never played anything besides 1st/2nd edition other than in video games, but recently got back in to a PnP group with the company I work for and I imagine I would love a BG-next or other D&D 5e game to play in the same style as BG. I just hope things don't go down similar to Dragon Age where everything changes with success and mechanics become watered down. The great thing about the Baldur's Gate games is that the story and mechanics improved from one game to the next... Dragon Age failed at this IMO because DA II, while carrying over details of what occurred in DA:O, had completely different gameplay that was nothing like the first game and just didn't have anywhere near a similar feel as you go through the story. So my main hope is future offerings from Beamdog stay true to what the infinity engine games brought us 18 years ago...Great stories, meaningful actions/decisions, and gameplay that truly made us care about the PC and NPC's alongside awesome gameplay that is consistent from one game to the next.
Yes, I remember Dave asking for input for what became the Dragon Age franchise. So maybe the question that should be asked is "what should be done differently to Dragon Age?"
So, based on what people say, here are a list of things that should be different.
1) Ruleset. Obvious, but a lot of the gameplay issues with DA are resolved by faithful implementation of 5th edition D&D rules.
2) Party size. Most people would seem to prefer a party size of six. I favour four. Did DA have 3 or 4? I can't remember. This carries with it the implication that a greater total number of companions is needed, even if that means they have to be less developed.
3) Following on from that, DA is fully voiced. I think the majority preference here is for part-voiced companions, since it makes adding additional content easier as well as freeing up development funds to use elsewhere.
4) Personal villains. The big bad in DAO is a mindless disease, with obstacles thrown up by morally ambiguous characters. Even Game of Thrones, for all it's moral ambiguity, has some characters who are thoroughly bad. When DAI does eventually throw up a proper villain, he is Marvel-movie bland.
5) Following on, alignments. Liked or not, alignments are part of the D&D FR setting. This affects how characters are perceived. For example, imagine playing through DAO if it said "Neutral" on Morrigan's character sheet, then imagine the same game if it said "Chaotic Evil".
6) an issue that only really applies to DAI, but let's have quality over quantity when it comes to side quests.
Yes, I remember Dave asking for input for what became the Dragon Age franchise. So maybe the question that should be asked is "what should be done differently to Dragon Age?"
Ironically, it is don't listen to the masses.
Some of the metagame critique of Orgins include:
"The mechanics are woefully inadequate in this game." " I have to all the time rearrange my "tactical" companion script with every new spell or skill and troubleshooting it through combat. I found this so very uncool, that I really just pray for end of it wave after wave of hurlocks genlocks nad other locks, so i would be able to see another cut scene of the plot" " clunky tactics system. . . but it was too complicated to be useful." "...getting to the same point and dieing because my AI is so poor." " the battle is slow and boring"
So for 2 (and Inquisition) they sped up the battles, streamlined the combat to 3 button mashing and removed any tactics from the game. Improved the AI, so it could play the game for the player.
Then threw it in an open world ('cause that's what all the kids are asking for) with a better (overpowered) crafting system ( "unrewarding Crafting system" claimed another review) and presto! Best game ever
Before anyone goes down a path of discussion related to Dragon Age, they may want to keep in mind that I had a very specific position on the Dragon Age team and one that related solely to the story and dialogue - not the creative direction of the series.
There is also no suggestion that Beamdog is about to make anything like Dragon Age - nor would I, having left that behind rather recently, be very interested in repeating something I just spent 10 years working on and deliberately walked away from.
Before anyone goes down a path of discussion related to Dragon Age, they may want to keep in mind that I had a very specific position on the Dragon Age team and one that related solely to the story and dialogue - not the creative direction of the series.
There is also no suggestion that Beamdog is about to make anything like Dragon Age - nor would I, having left that behind rather recently, be very interested in repeating something I just spent 10 years working on and deliberately walked away from.
Just FYI. Carry on.
To be clear, I wasn't saying you had anything to do with the gameplay changes from one to the next...just drawing correlation to the company you previously worked for making a great game, but then following up by turning things on it's head in the sequel... Wasn't trying to start a 'bash DA' conversation, really was just commenting that DA:O was a fantastic game and, while I am sure there was a great story in DAII (I liked what I saw and have heard it's a better story than the first game) the mechanics simplification was cringe worthy. My hope is that future games from Beamdog (infinity engine or otherwise) stay true to the type of gameplay and stories that give us a similar experience to what you get in PnP roleplaying games. Obviously there are some things that don't translate, but that's what BG did for me when I played it for the first time...made me feel like I was playing a really awesome set of pnp modules, albeit with a DM that didn't allow a whole lot of going off script. :P
I wonder how 5th edition will look compare to 2E kits and 3E prestige classes. I like kits more than prestige classes, but I am curious how class fluff will look like in 5E adapted game.
5e uses archetypes that act just like kits except classes choose them at different levels.
For example upon hitting level 3 Bards choose a College to join. Currently the only canon ones are College of Valor or College of Lore though the Blade and Jester were published in an online article.
The wizard chooses their arcane tradition at level 1 though.
Since every class has to choose an archetype/arcane tradition/divine domain/bard college/whatever I imagine when you hit a certain level on level up you'll be brought to a screen to choose your class's archetype options.
5e is actually much closer to 2e than 3.x or 4 ever were... Some interesting options for character building that weren't really present in 3/4e without allowing any class to really be OP. Want a Fighter/Mage/Thief? You can do that in 5e, though no matter how you focus you will definitely be giving something up... you could go with Eldritch Knight and/or Arcane Trickster paths to get your magic, but by mixing them you won't get the higher level spells for either... You could also make a Wizard and just take 1-3 levels each of Fighter and Rogue, but again nothing is free and you are delaying your ability to take ability increases/feats and your spell progression.
Point is there is quite a bit of customization options in 5e for your character building pleasure, but IMO this version did a far better job of requiring the character to give important things up. There are still 'power-builds' for sure, but from what I've seen most of those focus on "Nova" abilities that can only be used once per short/long rest period as opposed to every fight or having long durations.
The best part is they finally made the fighter the true champion of fighting. Clerics/Wizards can no longer buff themselves to godhood and out-fight the fighter... This makes it much more efficient to buff the fighter since generally a spell caster can only maintain one strong buff at a time, which promotes team work within the party instead of 'solo-builds' that can wreck everything thrown at them. I honestly think 5e will translate better to a video game than any previous version because the power-creep from levels and power-building has a much lower ceiling.
Also, as a personal testimony, I've played 1e AD&D to 5e.
I stuck with a 3.5e/Pathfinder combo for ages and have well over a thousand dollars invested in books.
Then I tried 5e. It's the best system. I've bought all the 5e books now and can't imagine playing 3.x again.
Like stated above any multiclass can work but you do make sacrifices. Fortunately these sacrifices are not character-ruining.
At Wizard 10/Cleric 10 in 3.x sucks. You can make it work by wizard 1/cleric 3/mystic theurge 2/true Necromancer 14 by abusing the precocious apprentice feat but that requires two other sourcebooks outside the core rules and abusing the RAW of a feat.
5e Wizard 10/Cleric 10 is rad. Not perfect but it works. Your proficiency (5e's THAC0/BAB) scales with character level, not class level. And your spells per day stack between full casters. 1/2 casters (Paladins, Rangers) add half their level to your caster level and 1/3rd (Arcane Trickster, Eldritch knight) add 1/3rd.
But your spells known do not increase.
So a wizard 10/cleric 10 has access to 9th level spell slots but no 9th level spells.
Well, spells now scale with spell slots used. So a sleep spell cast in a 9th level slot sleeps WAYYY more targets/stronger targets than a 1st level sleep spell.
5e multiclassing is fun because no matter what you do the character is playable.
Also multiclassing has stat minimums. So you need 13 wis to multiclass into cleric or 13 strength and charisma to multiclass into paladin.
Edit: I should clarify that even though I've played 1e and 2e and own the books for them I've only played then as one shots and not a full campaign.
Vallmyr said it much better than me... I only played 3.x in video games and never played 4e in any format, but I did play 1e and 2e (many years ago) and recently started DM'ing 5e... The point I was trying to make though is what he said... There isn't really a Powerbuild that will break the game (there are, but they deal with weaknesses to essentially gain nova abilities once or twice per rest), likewise, as Vallmyr stated it's pretty tough to make a character that is completely worthless...unless you just took 2-3 levels in every class, I guess.
Comments
Not that I have read anything in the FR campaign setting that suggests that working single mothers are at all rare, or that the entire population of the Sword Coast is certifiably insane.
That brings us back to the real issue of the total number of companions available. Nine seems to have become something of an industry standard (as well as having literary significance), but party size is usually smaller (3 or 4). With a party size of 6, you can't avoid having at least one overlapping character on each playthrough, unless you follow PoE and have a "create your own companion" option.
Now, I am pretty sure Beamdog have nothing like the resources that where thrown at the companions in DAI, so we will have to assume that they can't have that level of complexity, especially if there are more than nine. I think most of us are agreed that we don't want/need companions to be fully voiced, so that is one area where savings can be made.
Personally, I wouldn't mind if the party size was less than 6. I don't usually have more than four players in my PnP games.
If the game has a party size of six, someone who only wants to have a party of three or four can still have what they want. But if the game's party size is three or four, those of us who get so much enjoyment from that larger party size are denied what we want.
Some points before reading:
1) I only took the comments of people who made actual lists (either with numbers or bullets or -'s).
2) When people had more than 3 points, I took the first 3.
3) If people had 1 bullet-point with "isometric, RTwP, 5e edition" I scored in all three categories.
4) I tried to notice if someone had already posted, not sure if I covered that 100%.
5) I tried to condense some categories, so the numbers are a bit arbitrarily constructed.
6) Sometimes I had to choose where to put a certain point.
Companions (w interesting stories) 29
Great/Immersive story 27
Consequences/Choices/Reactivity/Replayability 25
Isometric 20
Compelling world 12
Good/Correct lore (loads of it) and rules 12
Moddable (tools, easily done) 11
Character Customization (creation/levelling choices) 10
FR setting / new location not visited before 9
5th edition 9
RTwP 8
Wide open chapter/Exploration/Sense of adventure/Mystery 8
Romance 7
Tactical control of companions (party of six, scripts, tactics) 6
DM mode/toolset a la NWN 6
Tactical battles (battle manouevres/smooth combat) 5
Infinity-like engine 5
Skill/ability/stat checks in conversations 5
Good quest design 5
Dragons (fighting and interacting) / Dragonborns 4
Antagonist not threatening armageddon/not saving the world/more personal 4
Fun gameplay/dialogues 3
Evil just as important as good 3
BG2 scale of content / or bigger 3
No romances 3
Illithids/Mind Flayers/Psionics 3
Persistant world (MP) 3
Good writing 3
No real-world issues in the game 3
Decouple aligment/reputation / ethics system 2
More gnomes (females, undead) 2
No three-their dialogue limit 2
Useful magic/skills outside of combat 2
Limited rate of progression / Low level campaign 2
More conventional characters instead of all special snowflakes 2
Extensive deity system 2
Special weapons 2
Gazebos
Werebears
Annoying the French
Items
Ferrets
Cookies
Backstabbing Ferrets with cookies
Druids
Rich Functionality
No time refreshing skills
Companions don't heal after battle
Tablet version
Swimming mechanics
Climbing mechanics
Animal companions
No Dexterity-based combat (player-wise)
Believable thief quests
Well thought design of IWD
Great music
Splendid background images
No boss monsters with immunity to every disabler
Charname is not a 'Chosen one'
No drow
Healers with bows and swords
Crafting/Forging system
Balance
Short prologue
Fantasy environment level design
3D/Aurora Engine like
Good resource management
Quickbar
Not about Bhaal
Turn-based
Unity engine
More than 6 party members
More race options
Multi-player main campaign co-op
Sorceror-like class
Many monsters
Different setting (Ravenloft)
AD&D Ruleset
Stronghold
Player can fail
Avoid overcomplicated companion quests
Extensive magic system
Scarce economy
Dark Tone
1. Party size of 6 (with a variety of detailed recruitable NPC's, each with different and rich interactions and stories)
2. Meaningful but restricted choices over starting races and classes, and not everything being balanced! Too many games these days seem to suffer from allowing you to be anything you want, but with this broadening choice your actual choices seem to be diminished - as whatever you choose essentially boils down to the same end result, balanced to such an extent that everything ends up a bland unappealing beige. A bit better on this means a bit worse on that etc. Plus one here means minus one there. And so on. No, no no! Not all classes have to be balanced. Some should be more powerful than others. Some should be more challenging. And some choices shouldn't be allowed at all.
3. An engaging story/plot.
Races
Human
Elf (High, Wood, Drow)
Dwarf (Hill, Mountain)
Halfling (Lightfoot, Stout)
Dragonborn
Tefling
Gnome (Rock, Forest)
Half-Orc
Half-Elf
Classes
Fighter (Battlemaster, Eldritch Knight, Champion)
Barbarian (Totem, that other one)
Paladin (Oath of Devotion, Vengeance, Ancients)
Ranger (Hunter, Beast Master)
Monk (Open Fist, Shadow, Four Elements)
Cleric (War, Nature, Knowledge, Trickery, Tempest, Light, Life)
Druid (Land, Moon)
Rogue (Thief, Assassin, Arcane Trickster)
Bard (Lore, Valor)
Sorcerer (Draconic, Wild Mage)
Wizard (Evoker, Conjurer, Illusionist, Enchanter, Transmuter, Abjurer, Diviner, Necromancer)
Warlock (Old One, Archfey, Fiend)
We have a small chance of seeing the Death Cleric and Oathbreaker Paladin from the DMG and probably an even less chance of seeing stuff like the Swashbuckler or bladesinger from the Sword Coast Adventurer's Guide.
I'm actually very surprised Sword Coast Legendd shipped with as few options as it did.
I would say othbreaker paladins would need to be included at a fairly high priority level.
The dwarven and halfling subraces are differently named in the FR setting.
So, based on what people say, here are a list of things that should be different.
1) Ruleset. Obvious, but a lot of the gameplay issues with DA are resolved by faithful implementation of 5th edition D&D rules.
2) Party size. Most people would seem to prefer a party size of six. I favour four. Did DA have 3 or 4? I can't remember. This carries with it the implication that a greater total number of companions is needed, even if that means they have to be less developed.
3) Following on from that, DA is fully voiced. I think the majority preference here is for part-voiced companions, since it makes adding additional content easier as well as freeing up development funds to use elsewhere.
4) Personal villains. The big bad in DAO is a mindless disease, with obstacles thrown up by morally ambiguous characters. Even Game of Thrones, for all it's moral ambiguity, has some characters who are thoroughly bad. When DAI does eventually throw up a proper villain, he is Marvel-movie bland.
5) Following on, alignments. Liked or not, alignments are part of the D&D FR setting. This affects how characters are perceived. For example, imagine playing through DAO if it said "Neutral" on Morrigan's character sheet, then imagine the same game if it said "Chaotic Evil".
6) an issue that only really applies to DAI, but let's have quality over quantity when it comes to side quests.
Some of the metagame critique of Orgins include:
"The mechanics are woefully inadequate in this game."
" I have to all the time rearrange my "tactical" companion script with every new spell or skill and troubleshooting it through combat. I found this so very uncool, that I really just pray for end of it wave after wave of hurlocks genlocks nad other locks, so i would be able to see another cut scene of the plot"
" clunky tactics system. . . but it was too complicated to be useful."
"...getting to the same point and dieing because my AI is so poor."
" the battle is slow and boring"
So for 2 (and Inquisition) they sped up the battles, streamlined the combat to 3 button mashing and removed any tactics from the game. Improved the AI, so it could play the game for the player.
Then threw it in an open world ('cause that's what all the kids are asking for) with a better (overpowered) crafting system ( "unrewarding Crafting system" claimed another review) and presto! Best game ever
There is also no suggestion that Beamdog is about to make anything like Dragon Age - nor would I, having left that behind rather recently, be very interested in repeating something I just spent 10 years working on and deliberately walked away from.
Just FYI. Carry on.
You have the patience of a saint, 15 pages and you are still interested enough to comment.
Thank you, it's appreciated.
For example upon hitting level 3 Bards choose a College to join. Currently the only canon ones are College of Valor or College of Lore though the Blade and Jester were published in an online article.
The wizard chooses their arcane tradition at level 1 though.
Since every class has to choose an archetype/arcane tradition/divine domain/bard college/whatever I imagine when you hit a certain level on level up you'll be brought to a screen to choose your class's archetype options.
Point is there is quite a bit of customization options in 5e for your character building pleasure, but IMO this version did a far better job of requiring the character to give important things up. There are still 'power-builds' for sure, but from what I've seen most of those focus on "Nova" abilities that can only be used once per short/long rest period as opposed to every fight or having long durations.
The best part is they finally made the fighter the true champion of fighting. Clerics/Wizards can no longer buff themselves to godhood and out-fight the fighter... This makes it much more efficient to buff the fighter since generally a spell caster can only maintain one strong buff at a time, which promotes team work within the party instead of 'solo-builds' that can wreck everything thrown at them. I honestly think 5e will translate better to a video game than any previous version because the power-creep from levels and power-building has a much lower ceiling.
I stuck with a 3.5e/Pathfinder combo for ages and have well over a thousand dollars invested in books.
Then I tried 5e. It's the best system. I've bought all the 5e books now and can't imagine playing 3.x again.
Like stated above any multiclass can work but you do make sacrifices. Fortunately these sacrifices are not character-ruining.
At Wizard 10/Cleric 10 in 3.x sucks. You can make it work by wizard 1/cleric 3/mystic theurge 2/true Necromancer 14 by abusing the precocious apprentice feat but that requires two other sourcebooks outside the core rules and abusing the RAW of a feat.
5e Wizard 10/Cleric 10 is rad. Not perfect but it works. Your proficiency (5e's THAC0/BAB) scales with character level, not class level. And your spells per day stack between full casters. 1/2 casters (Paladins, Rangers) add half their level to your caster level and 1/3rd (Arcane Trickster, Eldritch knight) add 1/3rd.
But your spells known do not increase.
So a wizard 10/cleric 10 has access to 9th level spell slots but no 9th level spells.
Well, spells now scale with spell slots used. So a sleep spell cast in a 9th level slot sleeps WAYYY more targets/stronger targets than a 1st level sleep spell.
5e multiclassing is fun because no matter what you do the character is playable.
Also multiclassing has stat minimums.
So you need 13 wis to multiclass into cleric or 13 strength and charisma to multiclass into paladin.
Edit: I should clarify that even though I've played 1e and 2e and own the books for them I've only played then as one shots and not a full campaign.