Camera will likely not be classical isometric (the statement is pretty vague)
60-100h playtime (comparable to D:OS2), but with higher replayability than D:OS 2
You will first visit Baldur's Gate before the Illithid invasion
Fan feedback is important, but they will not change central gameplay or combat systems due to it
No statement regarding whether it is turn-based or not
Note that I could not read the entire article as it requires a subscription.
Actually, again, nothing particularly new or surprising here. I already pointed out that as a AAA game it is not going to be isometric, and rather is very likely to be third person. I've also mentioned that core gameplay system choices including the combat system were sure to have been decided on a long time ago, and Larian is not going to change any of that just because of unhappy fans.
As I've said, my take is that not saying anything for now is a deliberate ploy. They have chosen TB, not because it is an appropriate choice but because they have broadly chosen to incorporate as many of the D:OS2 systems as possible into this game. They know this will generate a backlash among at least some fans of the original BG games. So they wait for the backlash to burn itself out, while at the same time try to get those very same unhappy people to become invested in this game because it has the title "Baldur's Gate 3." Then, by the time they reveal that the game will essentially play just like D:OS2, the unhappy people will be resigned to it.
So given everything that we know so far, most likely it will wind up being turn-based. (And honestly, despite my preference for RTwP, Larian should stick to the design that they know well. I'd rather that BG3 be a fantastic TB game than a clunky-feeling RTwP game.)
You've left out a third option: a clunky-feeling TB game. If D:OS2 represents Larian "knowing well" how to do TB, then their knowledge is shallow and poor.
There are a lot of opinions on P:K vs BGIII, but the article shows they are all actually on the same page in terms of changing PnP rules for a videogame.
"I recently sat down with developers behind Baldur's Gate 3, Bloodlines 2, and Pathfinder: Kingmaker to discuss staying faithful to the source material, where it made sense for them to diverge, and—perhaps most surprising—what happens when their experiments are so successful they end up back in the tabletop version."
"Videogames are different, by necessity. "When making a videogame, you as the player ask 'What can I do?'" says Vincke. Regarding Larian's work on Baldur's Gate 3, he says "Our goal has been to broaden as much as possible 'What can you do?' so you start feeling like you're playing [a tabletop] campaign."
"We've done a lot more than people expect, I think," he continues. Still, cuts have to be made. "We made a list of everything that's in the Player's Handbook, and we coded it green, orange, red. Green, meaning [we can use it as-written]. Orange, needs change. Red, impossible—or maybe not impossible, but we'd have to make a completely new game just to support this feature."
"Mearls gives one concrete example: The Ranger. A notorious letdown in D&D 5e, much to the chagrin of all Aragorn fans (myself included), Wizards knew the Ranger needed tweaking and started experimenting with changes. "I shot those over to Nick [Pechenin, Larian's systems designer] and he was like 'We've already identified some of the same problems,'" says Mearls. "The solutions Larian was arriving at are very similar to the solutions we're rolling out, so it gives you some faith maybe you're on the right path."
"Even mechanically we talked about spells slots and stuff. Is that the best way to represent something?" he continues. "Does the fighter really have to be the tutorial class? It shouldn't matter what class you want to play when you start. Maybe every class should have a tutorial option."
Of course, books are books. They're immutable, and D&D 5e is going on five years old now. I ask Mearls what these changes mean for the tabletop version. Are we in for a D&D 5.5, like the vaunted D&D 3.5 of old?
"In an ideal world we could patch books," says Mearls, laughing. But there's no D&D 5.5 in the works. "The goal is always to make the players feel like they just need the players handbook," he continues, "But if you buy the expansion or grab the download, you can then choose this alternate option." It's additive in other words, a different take on the Ranger class for those who collect all the D&D books, a bonus for the dedicated fan—as in Mordenkainen's Tome of Foes and Volo's Guide to Monsters, both Monster Manual supplements."
Well, I always thought of new editions as rule patches (until 4th edition because that was rather drastic..).
So yeah, you can patch it..
But what did Wizards change for 3.5? Aside from armored spellcasters and Warlocks (my favorite class, yaay Fae!) in a secondary books..
But thanks @JuliusBorisov the sentiment of Larian considering the rules is appreceated and your work in giving it to us is too.
I hope they give us some more info on *what* they have painted red.
(...)
"I recently sat down with developers behind Baldur's Gate 3, Bloodlines 2, and Pathfinder: Kingmaker to discuss staying faithful to the source material, where it made sense for them to diverge, and—perhaps most surprising—what happens when their experiments are so successful they end up back in the tabletop version."(...)
I will be very honest. There are rules that are hard to adapt in a game like flying rules, there are things that are almost impossible to adapt for eg? An spell with 65 days casting time and a lot of checks
But not add spells like Raise Island or adapt to be used one time in a campaign by an NPC in a scripted way is far different than KILL/destroy things that make the RPG great in the first place. Like for eg, the sense of progression on leveling, how magic works, how armor can deflect your blows, etc. Even NWN1 could be much better if was faithful to pnp. If i can make an viable necromancer/conjuration wizard or pale master, instead of "you can only have one summon BS and pale master gives no caster level BS" And NWN2, i liked warlock class, but only really enjoyed the class after fixed the class and made the class more pnp like with this mod > https://neverwintervault.org/project/nwn2/other/warlock-reworked-102g
Changes that makes sense and adds to the game like the "resonance" system are far different than changes like "hur dur, lets make plate armor never deflects any blow and let's put mmoish mechanics like cooldowns"
Ammar, is off topic but i wanna ask. Can you as a German understand the Riograndenser Hunsrückisch German My ex girlfriend spoke that dialect since her childhood.
As a Dutchman who regularly watches German television I can perfectly understand that dialect. I would say it is a bit on the (Southern) Dutch side of the German dialect continuum, with sounds that can also be heard in Southern Limburg, but the people in that video were speaking gramatically pretty regular German with just an accent.
Changes that makes sense and adds to the game like the "resonance" system are far different than changes like "hur dur, lets make plate armor never deflects any blow and let's put mmoish mechanics like cooldowns"
Both of these examples haven't been confirmed for BG3.
There is one thing that should get a cooldown though: resting.
While it makes the game easier, the chance to rest after every single encounter was kinda silly in the infinity engine games and NWN.
Especially since 5E has short rests and long rests, put a cooldown on the long rest so that resource management is a thing once again!
@SorcererV1ct0r I'm not sure I udnerstand you correctly, are you giving out a general statement or do you assume that such massive changes are planned/implemented by Larian?
Because so far, the only changes we know of are changes to the Ranger class which Wizards kinda screwed up in the first place and that they want to change the "missing aspect" of the AC ratio.
But they havn't (as far as I know) said anything about their method for that. It could jsut be optical stuff like armor deflection and auto-parry, so that the battle looks more dynamic and is not a miss-fest like in the first levels of BG1 - or they could go weird and replace the entire armor system (which I kinda doubt).
We simply don't know yet..
Changes that makes sense and adds to the game like the "resonance" system are far different than changes like "hur dur, lets make plate armor never deflects any blow and let's put mmoish mechanics like cooldowns"
Both of these examples haven't been confirmed for BG3.
Not but the article in question arguably only mentioned the "good" adaptations, like skills that can't work on a cRPG but can on a pnp RPG, the resonance system, but ignored Sword Coast Legends, ignored Neverwinter MMO, ignored 4e that tried to be a pnp-generic-mmo and failed, etc
PRC is the most popular NWN mod and what PRC does? Make things more pnp like. Make Pale Master give +caster level put more spells, allow you to have multiple summons, making necromancer/conjurer wizards not ****, bring new classes like Psion, etc. Arcane Archers on vanilla nwn are other usless class since they can only imbue fire, an useless element against any fire immune mob(and there are a lot of then on nwn) while on pnp they can imbue other elements.
I'm not sure I udnerstand you correctly, are you giving out a general statement or do you assume that such massive changes are planned/implemented by Larian?
Because so far, the only changes we know of are changes to the Ranger class which Wizards kinda screwed up in the first place and that they want to change the "missing aspect" of the AC ratio.
But they havn't (as far as I know) said anything about their method for that. It could jsut be optical stuff like armor deflection and auto-parry, so that the battle looks more dynamic and is not a miss-fest like in the first levels of BG1 - or they could go weird and replace the entire armor system (which I kinda doubt).
We simply don't know yet..
Ranger i don't have an opinion, IMO ranger excels at ranges that are not common for most campaigns... Missing in other hands will lead to a chain reaction of changes. They din't said that will do small tweaks, like make armor rarer, they said that missing offten doesn't work. Why my druid should cast barskin on a warrior? Pick weapon focus? If missing is rare, can my longbow have his historical accurate range? And spells with ranged touch attack? And spells that allow saves? Allow SR? (...)
Armor deflecting is how armor is supposed to work. In Battle of Agincourt, an small group of archers managed to defeat an big french knight in heavy armor, but most of their shots din't pierced enemy armor. Imagine never missing with the realistic bow range.... See at 2:35 the 275m/300 yeards shot, the arrow took a couple of seconds to reach the target, while on Larien games, bows has 13m range...
PrC is an extremly cumbersome mod and as such I kinda doubt it really is that popular.
It also adds some of the most OP prestige classes so I don't think that mod should be the standard ^^'
According to the rules of D&D since its creation, wearing a plate mail makes it easier for arrows to miss you. I don't have the books at hand at the moment, but I'm pretty sure WotC still hasn't changed that bit.
Realism is not really a goal here and I have yet to meet a DM that would allow stuff on the basis of realism alone.
So, you have to chose: Do you want the D&D 5E rules as written or modified for realism?
The problem with ranger, as I understand it, is that their skills are not really good.
Every class aside from the Fighter lives and falls with there skills, because the skills of a fighter allow him to use *every* weapon effective and thus a Bow is better in the hands of a good fighter than a weak ranger.
...Though Warlocks are still better than any archer at ranged fighting/sniping.
A chainlock can use his familiar as a extra pair of eyes and the range of EB can be increased to be on par with the best bows....
Arcanis, not exactly "realism", but i like the immersion of D&D but my fear is that the great majority of rule """"adaptations"""" that i saw ended in a worst product, at least in one aspect. "make it more fit for the new media" is something insanely rare.
About op prestige class, the game is a SP game, who cares? In a MP server you disable this classes. Problem solved.
Well, never forget that the infinity engine games also got quicke a bit of home rules..
I personally think balancing adaptions are often more dangerous, because you always increase the risk of the classes becoming bland.
But in the end, we have to trust in Larian for this, lets hope they don't muck it up and "fix" the parts that arn't broken. ^^
Well, the problem with op classes is.. they can actually take the fun out. For one it can became easy and turn every battle into something annoying that detracts from the story (because there is no challenge).
The bigger fear I have when it comes to op stuff that is commonly accessable is that content gets difficulty for the op classes and thus forces you into a "optimized" playstyle if you want to enjoy that content.
I like playing underpowerd characters and often sacrifice power for style - which is bad if you run into content that assumes that you tend to min-max.
That is the good thing with BG1, no matter how much you min max, unless you know he is there, surviving that blasted mage at the FAI is pure luck.. ^^ (That was a joke, please do not insert battles where you know they are there to overcome them savely)
The problem of """balancing""" is that is often an excuse to homogenize everything. And almost always result on games much more unbalanced. Replayability, Immersion, variety, fun, etc are far more important than homogenization.
I enjoy role playing, on P:K i picked only cold/eletricity evok spells and zero fire spells for my silver dragon sorcerer because an guy with silver dragonic bloodline trowing fireballs makes ZERO sense. Doesn't matter if the rules allow it and the games that focus too much on balance end up killing class fantasy.
For example, if there are a lot of undeads in your campaign, of course an paladin should have an easier time on the campaign than the my silver dragon disciple that knows mostly cold with few electricity offensive spells and only his summons and buffs will be viable in some encounters. But thats makes perfectly sense. I don't wanna skeletons dying by poison and monks using big and sharper axe in order to have strong unarmed attacks or other bs that makes no sense in the name of homogenization, like D3 did... And note that due the huge multipliers, d3 isn't even an balanced game
About warlocks, warlocks on vanilla nwn2 are a pain in the ***, completely useless. With the "pnp mods", they become an amazing experience.
About warlocks, warlocks on vanilla nwn2 are a pain in the ***, completely useless. With the "pnp mods", they become an amazing experience.
really? warlock is one of my favourite classes in NWN 2, although i only play SoZ and they are amazing in that game, and i have no mods and i play on the hardest difficulty
About warlocks, warlocks on vanilla nwn2 are a pain in the ***, completely useless. With the "pnp mods", they become an amazing experience.
really? warlock is one of my favourite classes in NWN 2, although i only play SoZ and they are amazing in that game, and i have no mods and i play on the hardest difficulty
Not only is nerfed to oblivion compared to pnp, tentacles that won't grapple, imbue item much weaker than on pnp, the dead walk that can only animate one undead, and tons of others "lets kill the class nerfs" but also the Eldricht Blast check against spell resistance and DC is bugged, making it almost useless in other problems.
[NN2] Any mods that make Warlocks not garbage? I just picked this game up on sale from GOG and was psyched to make my PnP warlock in this game, bu tlo and behold every NN2 guide on warlocks basically outlines how they're completely gimped or changed from the tabletop version, culminating in a dumpster fire of a class.
Are there any mods out there that undoes all the stupid the devs did to this class?
- Added all Warlock Epic Feats and Invocations. To know more read the feats section.
- Fixed Warlock to have the right save DC on eldritch blasts (10 + half-level, shape level or essence level whatever is higher + Charisma modifier) - Fixed all Invocations with the right save DC and right caster level (including Practiced Spellcaster that I added)
- Implemented point blank shot to work as DnD on eldritch blasts (giving +1 to damage if below 30 feet)
- Implemented Eldritch Glaive as per DnD:(NEW) Your eldritch blast takes on physical substance, appearing similar to a glaive. As a full-round action, you can make a single melee touch attack as if wielding a reach weapon. If you hit, your target is affected as if struck by your eldritch blast (including any eldritch essence applied to the blast). Unlike Hideous Blow, you cannot combine your Eldritch Glaive with damage from a held weapon. Furthermore, until the start of your next turn, you also threaten nearby squares as if wielding a reach weapon, and you can make attacks of opportunity with your Eldritch Glaive. These are melee touch attacks. If your base attack bonus is +6 or higher, you can (as part of the full-round action) make as many attacks with your Eldritch Glaive as your base attack bonus allows. For example, a 12th-level warlock could attack twice, once with a base attack bonus of +6, and again with a base attack bonus of +1.
- Changed Hindering Blast to Repelling Blast as per DnD - Any medium or smaller creature struck by a repelling blast must make a Reflex save or be hurled 1d6x5 feet directly away from you and knocked prone by the energy of the attack.
- Draining Blast changed to Sickening Blast (-2 to skills, savings, abilities, BAB and damage rolls) on a failed fort save, as per DnD
- Frightful Blast changed to a shaken effect (-2 to skills, savings, abilities, BAB and damage rolls + frightened) on a failed will save, as per DnD
- Changed Utterdark blast to stack with itself as it should do and last 1 hour and kill enemies with as many negative levels as HDs
- Noxious Blast modified to have a nauseated effect (similar to daze), as per DnD
- Doom Shape changed to affect only enemies 20 feet around the caster as per DnD.
- Corrected bug stacking of effects with multiple rays with differents shapes/essences
- Hellrime Blast -4 to dexterity duration is now correctly 10 minutes
- The Dead walk now works as DnD. It animated 1*Caster level (max 20) of undead and put them under your control for 1 minute. You can cast it as many times you want but you cannot control more than 2*Caster Level HD of undead. Those in excess will be removed from your control. - Flee the Scene is now a teleport spell - Word of Changing is now an hostile polymorph spell that change creatures to 1 HD ones if failed save - Retributive Invisibility last 1 round/level as it should
- Added Enervating Shadow Greater Invocation for Warlock
- Chilling Tentacles changed with a proper Grapple routine and it now works as DnD
- Tenacious Plague works as DnD now, it doesn't stack with itself and it's more powerful.
- Death Knell (for blood magus) changed to work more similar to Dnd: if target is near death and fails a will save the caster gets temporary hit points, 2 more strenght and 1+ caster level.
- Better implementation of Voracious Dispelling
- Better implementation of Devour Magic, now it gives temporary hit point to ANY spell removed as per description and DnD.
- Added Practiced Spellcaster as a selectable feat for the class.
Warlock is another case of "lets ignore the pnp rules for the sake of homogenization" and the result was an class that on the story is amazing(Jerro), but playing as one is like running and letting your companions do all the work... And note, climb walls, fly, etc is not present on the pnp fix because this are things that are hard to translate from source material. The correct range for certain spells like Eldricht Spear too, but due render limitations, not due "we need nerf range"
interesting, for me, i thought the warlock was just fine, i found them to be an amazing support character that can replace a mage thanks to flee the scene and their dispelling spells, plus the one thing i like the most is that they don't have to rest to replenish spells which is nice
interesting, for me, i thought the warlock was just fine, i found them to be an amazing support character that can replace a mage thanks to flee the scene and their dispelling spells, plus the one thing i like the most is that they don't have to rest to replenish spells which is nice
Warlock was made to another version of an caster, an "develish" version of sorcerer, just like an druid is a "naturish" version of a cleric. Trading offensive power and flexibility by much more durability and less restrictions on channeling his arcane power. Unfortunately he appears on complete arcane, not under OGL license, so i can't exactly post the tables and what he can do on pnp, will only do an small quote that i believe that is on fair use(is less than 2 line quote).
"Unlike sorcerers or wizards, who approach arcane magic through the medium of spells, a warlock invokes powerful magic through nothing more than an effort of will" (source : Complete Arcane - Page 6)
But see, people have an completely different idea about what an class is because they din't followed the rules... Warlocks looks much more interesting when they can fly, reanimate dead, climb walls, throw death tentacles, snipe enemies with eldricht spear in supernatural darkness, transform the enemy into an insect forever, teleport, etc.
And yes, on 3.5e a lot of people found warlock amazing.
" I think the warlock in 5e is a fantastic class with lots of unique features. But man oh man do i miss playing a flying teleporting tentacled eldritch horror that shoots unlimited lasers. Back in those days, warlocks had absolutely no regard for spell slots or other concerns of mere mortal casters such as your run-of-the-mill wizard or sorcerer."
On 5e, i honestly liked the idea of Warlock approaching magic towards an way different than Wizard or an Sorcerer. he gain knowledge from an outsider patron and perform favors for the outsider patron.
I really wish that BG3 implements an good relationship of warlock and her patron or cleric and her deity(that are different, an warlock to his patron is more akin to master/apprentice relationship since they don't cast divine spells, they are arcane casters). I never saw an cRPG that implement this type of approach of magic well. But don't have much hopes for bg3...
... You are not bound to gain magic from an evil outsider - The Fey and the older ones where always an option.
While I'm at it - no you don't need to sell your soul, the pact can have different forms of payments.
Also, a pet peeve I have: Warlock and Wizards are not that different as many think:
Most Wizards find a teacher (mentor or academy or so) - which is exactly what most Warlocks do.
The difference is that the Warlocks teachers have a more fundamental approach to magic and thus the way to work their magic is different.
Anyways, while a Patron/Deity relationship may be nice, I fear that that would be too specific.
But maybe we get some class specific quest (something like the Strongholds in BG2 maybe) which are centered around the classes.
My main concern is however that such a quest can actually limit your character - because there is no way they can account for everyones RP idea.
The Warlock for example is often seen as someone who made deals with a devil to gain power and now tries to wigle out of the contract to save his soul - this may fit some peoples vision of a warlock, but those who like the Fey fluff (like me) or the Cthulhu fluff will be bitterly disappointed..
Arcanis, you are right on 5e. Anyway, strongholds aren't exactly that "class specific", sorcerers, wizards and bards if i remember correctly get the same stronghold. But lets suppose that they realize that missing isn't a big problem after lv 4/5 and let you start at lv 4/5(like nwn1/2 and bg2 do) and you only as a low level char only on tutorial, you get introduced by an mentor. Then for each class, you can have multiple backgrounds. That is the best way to implement an mentor. An cleric will start on a church of his deity, an warlock will have dreams with his patron(if is an devil, an fey or an "aberration") giving basic instructions.
The problem is. DA:O has few classes, they can have an background area with voice actors for you depending your class and multiple backgrounds to choose, but considering that D&D has 13 classes and a sorcerer can have multiple bloodlines, an warlock, multiple patrons, make something similar to DA:O would be epic but insanely costly,
as for an warlock making an pact with an fiend, one thing that the fiend wanna probably ask if that he will be in his afterlife on hell, not to be tormented, but to become part of nine hells forces. No high rank devil will waste an high level warlock when he can be useful in other ways. If you see the lore of nine hells, they torture the souls that end up on nine hells, pick those who deserve and use transform into devils. Those who doesn't deserve, they use their souls as currency or to enchant magical weapons/armor or to reagent to some spells. An warlock that sign an contract with an devil knows what waits him. Probably his master can judge is he worth to become part of nine hells or not, but depends the contract.
But what did Wizards change for 3.5? Aside from armored spellcasters and Warlocks (my favorite class, yaay Fae!) in a secondary books..
The differences between 3.0 and 3.5 were overall fairly minor; you could run 3.0 adventures in 3.5 with just a few corrections. As I recall, the biggest change I had to deal with as a DM was how Damage Reduction worked between both systems; 3.0 used a much simpler system where it sorta went from "iron/silver > +1 > +2 > +3" and so on and so forth. Monsters would have a rating like DR 30/+3 which meant that if they were hit by anything less than a +3 weapon, they'd take 30 less damage, possibly reducing the damage they took to 0.
3.5 changed it so that the DR values were lower, but more varied. You now had entries like "DR 15/magic and holy", which meant that the monster needed a magic holy weapon to damage, or they'd reduce the damage taken by 15. It allowed for much more nuanced protections for monsters, such as tanar'ri needing Holy+Cold Iron weapons, baatezu needing Holy+Silver weapons, werewolves needing just plain Silver (but their damage reduction applied if you were hitting them with a plain magic weapon that wasn't Silver), liches needing Magic+Bludgeoning weapons etc.
But what did Wizards change for 3.5? Aside from armored spellcasters and Warlocks (my favorite class, yaay Fae!) in a secondary books..
The differences between 3.0 and 3.5 were overall fairly minor; you could run 3.0 adventures in 3.5 with just a few corrections. As I recall, the biggest change I had to deal with as a DM was how Damage Reduction worked between both systems; 3.0 used a much simpler system where it sorta went from "iron/silver > +1 > +2 > +3" and so on and so forth. Monsters would have a rating like DR 30/+3 which meant that if they were hit by anything less than a +3 weapon, they'd take 30 less damage, possibly reducing the damage they took to 0.
3.5 changed it so that the DR values were lower, but more varied. You now had entries like "DR 15/magic and holy", which meant that the monster needed a magic holy weapon to damage, or they'd reduce the damage taken by 15. It allowed for much more nuanced protections for monsters, such as tanar'ri needing Holy+Cold Iron weapons, baatezu needing Holy+Silver weapons, werewolves needing just plain Silver (but their damage reduction applied if you were hitting them with a plain magic weapon that wasn't Silver), liches needing Magic+Bludgeoning weapons etc.
Other change is how spells like incendiary cloud works, SR was supposed to similar to AC, but by some unknown reason, on 3.0e, is possible for someone to be inside an incendiary cloud and take no damage. On 3.5e, they made an natural acid fog and an ""magical"" acid fog the same and it makes perfectly sense.
This changes on SR particularly made conjuration of non summons more viable and in certain situations, like against golems, better than evokation. 3.5e makes much more sense than 3.0e in many aspects.
"I’ve been reading Dungeons & Dragons since I was a kid. Lord of the Rings was my first fantasy series, the second one was Dragonlance from Weis and Hickman. So that’s how I got into it. And when we were thinking about our next game, which we decided wasn’t going to be Divinity, Baldur’s Gate came very high on the list. It was very easy to motivate the team for it. And here we are!"
"GC: [laughs] I really enjoyed the combat in Divinity: Original Sin because of the obvious XCOM influence, but because it’s an adaptation of existing rules does that mean it’ll be very different in Baldur’s Gate III?
SV: Yeah, that’s the one that I’m not answering. [laughs] I will tell you what the idea is though. So, the reason why I’m not saying anything is because combat is something that is so sacred in this, when it comes to Baldur’s Gate, so we want to show it to people rather than just talk about it. However, I can tell you what the idea is. When you play D&D you get thrown challenges that you need to overcome. Some of these challenges require you to go into combat. And to ensure player agency you have to give the player a whole bunch of systems so that they can use them in any way they want to overcome the challenges that are thrown at them. That’s what we did in DOS2 because in DOS2 people come up with craziest ways of winning, unwinnable combat. That’s also what we’ll do in Baldur’s Gate III. You’re going to see combat that is very easy and you’re going to see combat that is hard. You have an entire toolbox at your disposal, which goes beyond just a rule set. It also depends on your imagination, so that you will overcome situations in a variety of ways."
"GC: Another thing I liked about DOS 2 was that it had a sense of humour, which is not common in RPGs. Is that something you can carry through to Baldur’s Gate? Because the originals did have funny characters… I’ve just forgotten his name, but the guy with the hamster.
SV: Minsc and Boo, yeah. So there’s a different tonality to DOS in Baldur’s Gate III, but that doesn’t mean that there’s no room for humour. I guarantee you that you’re going to smile. I’m just thinking of a scene I guarantee that you’re going to smile at for sure. It’s almost impossible not to in that scene."
One big thing in this article is this game's attempt to revolutionaize CRPG play through multiplayer streaming. The host of the game sends a link to other players to join the game from whatever platform. Whatever the device or platform, all can join. But this will include just the television as well, if I understand correctly. No console platform required, no computer, laptop, or tablet--no device other than a smart TV. Which to my mind translates to TB being essential. Because gameplay will occur by selecting among choices presented by the game engine that requires via toggling with the remote control, basically. How the streaming or TV remote will let someone that is streaming the game direct the character's walking and running (i.e., set their destination point) I'm not sure.
And I would think that this will require the purchase of a streaming app, either specifically for this game, or that includes this game. Monthly subscription? Everyone in the entertainment media biz right now wants a piece of the Netflix action.
(...)That’s what we did in DOS2 because in DOS2 people come up with craziest ways of winning, unwinnable combat. That’s also what we’ll do in Baldur’s Gate III.(...)"
I strongly disagree. D:OS2 got criticized by their homogenized armor system that lead to an homogenized combat from even D:OS1 fans. I really don't think that D:OS resembles D&D. In fact, fells more like an puzzle/strategy game with a lot of modern game design tropes like cooldowns, gear that works more like charname's DNA than actual equipment, etc. He din't mentioned ANYTHING great about BG or D&D on his interview. In fact, every time that i saw he mentioning things about D&D or BG was criticizing it(missing too often, rest-scum, leveling too slow and even spell slots, an system that Dark Souls uses well)
Compare to Solasta interview. At 1:20, they mentioned even fly and climb, things that doesn't exist on cRPG from an long time.... I really miss fly on M&M VI-VIII and Levitation on Morrowind... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aQ30CjTaHJo
edit : the main idea of D&D was not even to be an strategy game. Was "lets pretend that this fiction things like conan exists and we are characters in this universe"
For all that talking only two things stood out for me:
1) GC: "So you’re the guy that wanted to create the game so that your girlfriend could play with you?"
SV: "Yes, that’s me. [laughs] But it works, you know, because it’s turn-based, it’s slower, so people just pick it up and it’s easy to explain as well. But you just have to get them in front of the machine and try it out."
This is the ultimate truth of it. All the arguments about TB being more in-depth or more tactical or this and that are just hogwash. It really comes down to the game playing slower, because many people cannot handle things happening fast. But some people can handle faster gameplay, yet have to be stuck with mind-numbingly slow gameplay for the sake of sales numbers.
2) GC: "So you’re not showing the game here, but when we see it is it going to be something that looks and plays similarly to Divinity: Original Sin? … I never get over how terrible a name that is."
SV: "We are aware of that. [laughs] I know. That’s why we licensed the Baldur’s Gate name."
All: [laughs]
The real question there gets completely avoided by SV. The game is going to look and play like D:OS, which means this will be a D:OS game just using D&D rules, which is what the D:OS fans looking to hijack this game for themselves want.
This is the ultimate truth of it. All the arguments about TB being more in-depth or more tactical or this and that are just hogwash. It really comes down to the game playing slower, because many people cannot handle things happening fast. But some people can handle faster gameplay, yet have to be stuck with mind-numbingly slow gameplay for the sake of sales numbers.
.
One does not preclude the other. A game can be approachable and yet deep, tactical and yet fun. One of the great strengths of D:OS is its ability to do this.
@SorcererV1ct0r I think I addressed this one a few times already. I don't find the D:OS2 armor system "homogenized", I like it, and I understand why they switched to it from the D:OS1 armor system (which I also liked) - not to make the player able to stun/freeze/knockdown/blind/petrify all the enemies during the first turn due to higher initiative of your characters and their high stats resulting in over 100% chances of success for those crowd-control spells. When enemies have physical or magical armor, you have to go through it first to be able to crowd-control. This improves the combat, IMHO. "Got criticized" is a big statement. That point of view is common on the Codex. I don't see much criticism of that in game reviews. But that is, again, not relevant.
The armor system in BG3 will be entirely different.
Oh, and there IS flying in DOS2: check out the Spread Your Wings skill.
While I know nothing about the BG3 game engine, even a 2D game can implement a flight mechanic. I've created a flight mechanic for BG:EE, which lets a character float toward their destination, going over normally impassable areas like houses, walls and rivers.
My BG:EE implementation really just lets a character go through walls; it can't distinguish between walls someone could fly over and walls that couldn't be flown over (e.g. a wall that goes up to the ceiling). But since the latter are almost always indoors, I simply only let flight work outdoors. I also made a similar ethereal mechanic that lets characters go through walls both indoors and outdoors.
This is the ultimate truth of it. All the arguments about TB being more in-depth or more tactical or this and that are just hogwash. It really comes down to the game playing slower, because many people cannot handle things happening fast. But some people can handle faster gameplay, yet have to be stuck with mind-numbingly slow gameplay for the sake of sales numbers.
.
One does not preclude the other. A game can be approachable and yet deep, tactical and yet fun. One of the great strengths of D:OS is its ability to do this.
Oh, one absolutely precludes the other, and in my estimation it is precisely the D:OS games that prove this. They are superficial, silly farce. They look and feel and play like a Nickelodeon TV show.
Comments
As I've said, my take is that not saying anything for now is a deliberate ploy. They have chosen TB, not because it is an appropriate choice but because they have broadly chosen to incorporate as many of the D:OS2 systems as possible into this game. They know this will generate a backlash among at least some fans of the original BG games. So they wait for the backlash to burn itself out, while at the same time try to get those very same unhappy people to become invested in this game because it has the title "Baldur's Gate 3." Then, by the time they reveal that the game will essentially play just like D:OS2, the unhappy people will be resigned to it.
There are a lot of opinions on P:K vs BGIII, but the article shows they are all actually on the same page in terms of changing PnP rules for a videogame.
"I recently sat down with developers behind Baldur's Gate 3, Bloodlines 2, and Pathfinder: Kingmaker to discuss staying faithful to the source material, where it made sense for them to diverge, and—perhaps most surprising—what happens when their experiments are so successful they end up back in the tabletop version."
"Videogames are different, by necessity. "When making a videogame, you as the player ask 'What can I do?'" says Vincke. Regarding Larian's work on Baldur's Gate 3, he says "Our goal has been to broaden as much as possible 'What can you do?' so you start feeling like you're playing [a tabletop] campaign."
"We've done a lot more than people expect, I think," he continues. Still, cuts have to be made. "We made a list of everything that's in the Player's Handbook, and we coded it green, orange, red. Green, meaning [we can use it as-written]. Orange, needs change. Red, impossible—or maybe not impossible, but we'd have to make a completely new game just to support this feature."
"Mearls gives one concrete example: The Ranger. A notorious letdown in D&D 5e, much to the chagrin of all Aragorn fans (myself included), Wizards knew the Ranger needed tweaking and started experimenting with changes. "I shot those over to Nick [Pechenin, Larian's systems designer] and he was like 'We've already identified some of the same problems,'" says Mearls. "The solutions Larian was arriving at are very similar to the solutions we're rolling out, so it gives you some faith maybe you're on the right path."
"Even mechanically we talked about spells slots and stuff. Is that the best way to represent something?" he continues. "Does the fighter really have to be the tutorial class? It shouldn't matter what class you want to play when you start. Maybe every class should have a tutorial option."
Of course, books are books. They're immutable, and D&D 5e is going on five years old now. I ask Mearls what these changes mean for the tabletop version. Are we in for a D&D 5.5, like the vaunted D&D 3.5 of old?
"In an ideal world we could patch books," says Mearls, laughing. But there's no D&D 5.5 in the works. "The goal is always to make the players feel like they just need the players handbook," he continues, "But if you buy the expansion or grab the download, you can then choose this alternate option." It's additive in other words, a different take on the Ranger class for those who collect all the D&D books, a bonus for the dedicated fan—as in Mordenkainen's Tome of Foes and Volo's Guide to Monsters, both Monster Manual supplements."
So yeah, you can patch it..
But what did Wizards change for 3.5? Aside from armored spellcasters and Warlocks (my favorite class, yaay Fae!) in a secondary books..
But thanks @JuliusBorisov the sentiment of Larian considering the rules is appreceated and your work in giving it to us is too.
I hope they give us some more info on *what* they have painted red.
I will be very honest. There are rules that are hard to adapt in a game like flying rules, there are things that are almost impossible to adapt for eg? An spell with 65 days casting time and a lot of checks
http://www.d20srd.org/srd/epic/spells/raiseIsland.htm
But not add spells like Raise Island or adapt to be used one time in a campaign by an NPC in a scripted way is far different than KILL/destroy things that make the RPG great in the first place. Like for eg, the sense of progression on leveling, how magic works, how armor can deflect your blows, etc. Even NWN1 could be much better if was faithful to pnp. If i can make an viable necromancer/conjuration wizard or pale master, instead of "you can only have one summon BS and pale master gives no caster level BS" And NWN2, i liked warlock class, but only really enjoyed the class after fixed the class and made the class more pnp like with this mod > https://neverwintervault.org/project/nwn2/other/warlock-reworked-102g
Changes that makes sense and adds to the game like the "resonance" system are far different than changes like "hur dur, lets make plate armor never deflects any blow and let's put mmoish mechanics like cooldowns"
As a Dutchman who regularly watches German television I can perfectly understand that dialect. I would say it is a bit on the (Southern) Dutch side of the German dialect continuum, with sounds that can also be heard in Southern Limburg, but the people in that video were speaking gramatically pretty regular German with just an accent.
Both of these examples haven't been confirmed for BG3.
While it makes the game easier, the chance to rest after every single encounter was kinda silly in the infinity engine games and NWN.
Especially since 5E has short rests and long rests, put a cooldown on the long rest so that resource management is a thing once again!
@SorcererV1ct0r I'm not sure I udnerstand you correctly, are you giving out a general statement or do you assume that such massive changes are planned/implemented by Larian?
Because so far, the only changes we know of are changes to the Ranger class which Wizards kinda screwed up in the first place and that they want to change the "missing aspect" of the AC ratio.
But they havn't (as far as I know) said anything about their method for that. It could jsut be optical stuff like armor deflection and auto-parry, so that the battle looks more dynamic and is not a miss-fest like in the first levels of BG1 - or they could go weird and replace the entire armor system (which I kinda doubt).
We simply don't know yet..
Not but the article in question arguably only mentioned the "good" adaptations, like skills that can't work on a cRPG but can on a pnp RPG, the resonance system, but ignored Sword Coast Legends, ignored Neverwinter MMO, ignored 4e that tried to be a pnp-generic-mmo and failed, etc
PRC is the most popular NWN mod and what PRC does? Make things more pnp like. Make Pale Master give +caster level put more spells, allow you to have multiple summons, making necromancer/conjurer wizards not ****, bring new classes like Psion, etc. Arcane Archers on vanilla nwn are other usless class since they can only imbue fire, an useless element against any fire immune mob(and there are a lot of then on nwn) while on pnp they can imbue other elements.
Ranger i don't have an opinion, IMO ranger excels at ranges that are not common for most campaigns... Missing in other hands will lead to a chain reaction of changes. They din't said that will do small tweaks, like make armor rarer, they said that missing offten doesn't work. Why my druid should cast barskin on a warrior? Pick weapon focus? If missing is rare, can my longbow have his historical accurate range? And spells with ranged touch attack? And spells that allow saves? Allow SR? (...)
Armor deflecting is how armor is supposed to work. In Battle of Agincourt, an small group of archers managed to defeat an big french knight in heavy armor, but most of their shots din't pierced enemy armor. Imagine never missing with the realistic bow range.... See at 2:35 the 275m/300 yeards shot, the arrow took a couple of seconds to reach the target, while on Larien games, bows has 13m range...
It also adds some of the most OP prestige classes so I don't think that mod should be the standard ^^'
According to the rules of D&D since its creation, wearing a plate mail makes it easier for arrows to miss you. I don't have the books at hand at the moment, but I'm pretty sure WotC still hasn't changed that bit.
Realism is not really a goal here and I have yet to meet a DM that would allow stuff on the basis of realism alone.
So, you have to chose: Do you want the D&D 5E rules as written or modified for realism?
The problem with ranger, as I understand it, is that their skills are not really good.
Every class aside from the Fighter lives and falls with there skills, because the skills of a fighter allow him to use *every* weapon effective and thus a Bow is better in the hands of a good fighter than a weak ranger.
...Though Warlocks are still better than any archer at ranged fighting/sniping.
A chainlock can use his familiar as a extra pair of eyes and the range of EB can be increased to be on par with the best bows....
About op prestige class, the game is a SP game, who cares? In a MP server you disable this classes. Problem solved.
I personally think balancing adaptions are often more dangerous, because you always increase the risk of the classes becoming bland.
But in the end, we have to trust in Larian for this, lets hope they don't muck it up and "fix" the parts that arn't broken. ^^
Well, the problem with op classes is.. they can actually take the fun out. For one it can became easy and turn every battle into something annoying that detracts from the story (because there is no challenge).
The bigger fear I have when it comes to op stuff that is commonly accessable is that content gets difficulty for the op classes and thus forces you into a "optimized" playstyle if you want to enjoy that content.
I like playing underpowerd characters and often sacrifice power for style - which is bad if you run into content that assumes that you tend to min-max.
That is the good thing with BG1, no matter how much you min max, unless you know he is there, surviving that blasted mage at the FAI is pure luck.. ^^ (That was a joke, please do not insert battles where you know they are there to overcome them savely)
I enjoy role playing, on P:K i picked only cold/eletricity evok spells and zero fire spells for my silver dragon sorcerer because an guy with silver dragonic bloodline trowing fireballs makes ZERO sense. Doesn't matter if the rules allow it and the games that focus too much on balance end up killing class fantasy.
For example, if there are a lot of undeads in your campaign, of course an paladin should have an easier time on the campaign than the my silver dragon disciple that knows mostly cold with few electricity offensive spells and only his summons and buffs will be viable in some encounters. But thats makes perfectly sense. I don't wanna skeletons dying by poison and monks using big and sharper axe in order to have strong unarmed attacks or other bs that makes no sense in the name of homogenization, like D3 did... And note that due the huge multipliers, d3 isn't even an balanced game
About warlocks, warlocks on vanilla nwn2 are a pain in the ***, completely useless. With the "pnp mods", they become an amazing experience.
really? warlock is one of my favourite classes in NWN 2, although i only play SoZ and they are amazing in that game, and i have no mods and i play on the hardest difficulty
Not only is nerfed to oblivion compared to pnp, tentacles that won't grapple, imbue item much weaker than on pnp, the dead walk that can only animate one undead, and tons of others "lets kill the class nerfs" but also the Eldricht Blast check against spell resistance and DC is bugged, making it almost useless in other problems.
You end up micromanaging much more other members, you cancomplete the game with warlock on hardest difficulty, just like you can make your charname lv1 and complete the game using companions... An intersting reddit topic : https://www.reddit.com/r/neverwinternights/comments/6g66fv/nn2_any_mods_that_make_warlocks_not_garbage/
Are there any mods out there that undoes all the stupid the devs did to this class?
Here is an interesting mod that fixes warlock.
- https://neverwintervault.org/project/nwn2/other/warlock-reworked-102g
Warlock is another case of "lets ignore the pnp rules for the sake of homogenization" and the result was an class that on the story is amazing(Jerro), but playing as one is like running and letting your companions do all the work... And note, climb walls, fly, etc is not present on the pnp fix because this are things that are hard to translate from source material. The correct range for certain spells like Eldricht Spear too, but due render limitations, not due "we need nerf range"
Warlock was made to another version of an caster, an "develish" version of sorcerer, just like an druid is a "naturish" version of a cleric. Trading offensive power and flexibility by much more durability and less restrictions on channeling his arcane power. Unfortunately he appears on complete arcane, not under OGL license, so i can't exactly post the tables and what he can do on pnp, will only do an small quote that i believe that is on fair use(is less than 2 line quote).
"Unlike sorcerers or wizards, who approach arcane magic through the medium of spells, a warlock invokes powerful magic through nothing more than an effort of will" (source : Complete Arcane - Page 6)
But see, people have an completely different idea about what an class is because they din't followed the rules... Warlocks looks much more interesting when they can fly, reanimate dead, climb walls, throw death tentacles, snipe enemies with eldricht spear in supernatural darkness, transform the enemy into an insect forever, teleport, etc.
And yes, on 3.5e a lot of people found warlock amazing.
https://www.reddit.com/r/dndnext/comments/96dlfs/anyone_else_miss_the_old_35e_warlock/
And even in therms of supporting the party, someone that can cast haste, stoneskin, etc is far better
On 5e, i honestly liked the idea of Warlock approaching magic towards an way different than Wizard or an Sorcerer. he gain knowledge from an outsider patron and perform favors for the outsider patron.
I really wish that BG3 implements an good relationship of warlock and her patron or cleric and her deity(that are different, an warlock to his patron is more akin to master/apprentice relationship since they don't cast divine spells, they are arcane casters). I never saw an cRPG that implement this type of approach of magic well. But don't have much hopes for bg3...
While I'm at it - no you don't need to sell your soul, the pact can have different forms of payments.
Also, a pet peeve I have: Warlock and Wizards are not that different as many think:
Most Wizards find a teacher (mentor or academy or so) - which is exactly what most Warlocks do.
The difference is that the Warlocks teachers have a more fundamental approach to magic and thus the way to work their magic is different.
Anyways, while a Patron/Deity relationship may be nice, I fear that that would be too specific.
But maybe we get some class specific quest (something like the Strongholds in BG2 maybe) which are centered around the classes.
My main concern is however that such a quest can actually limit your character - because there is no way they can account for everyones RP idea.
The Warlock for example is often seen as someone who made deals with a devil to gain power and now tries to wigle out of the contract to save his soul - this may fit some peoples vision of a warlock, but those who like the Fey fluff (like me) or the Cthulhu fluff will be bitterly disappointed..
The problem is. DA:O has few classes, they can have an background area with voice actors for you depending your class and multiple backgrounds to choose, but considering that D&D has 13 classes and a sorcerer can have multiple bloodlines, an warlock, multiple patrons, make something similar to DA:O would be epic but insanely costly,
as for an warlock making an pact with an fiend, one thing that the fiend wanna probably ask if that he will be in his afterlife on hell, not to be tormented, but to become part of nine hells forces. No high rank devil will waste an high level warlock when he can be useful in other ways. If you see the lore of nine hells, they torture the souls that end up on nine hells, pick those who deserve and use transform into devils. Those who doesn't deserve, they use their souls as currency or to enchant magical weapons/armor or to reagent to some spells. An warlock that sign an contract with an devil knows what waits him. Probably his master can judge is he worth to become part of nine hells or not, but depends the contract.
The differences between 3.0 and 3.5 were overall fairly minor; you could run 3.0 adventures in 3.5 with just a few corrections. As I recall, the biggest change I had to deal with as a DM was how Damage Reduction worked between both systems; 3.0 used a much simpler system where it sorta went from "iron/silver > +1 > +2 > +3" and so on and so forth. Monsters would have a rating like DR 30/+3 which meant that if they were hit by anything less than a +3 weapon, they'd take 30 less damage, possibly reducing the damage they took to 0.
3.5 changed it so that the DR values were lower, but more varied. You now had entries like "DR 15/magic and holy", which meant that the monster needed a magic holy weapon to damage, or they'd reduce the damage taken by 15. It allowed for much more nuanced protections for monsters, such as tanar'ri needing Holy+Cold Iron weapons, baatezu needing Holy+Silver weapons, werewolves needing just plain Silver (but their damage reduction applied if you were hitting them with a plain magic weapon that wasn't Silver), liches needing Magic+Bludgeoning weapons etc.
Other change is how spells like incendiary cloud works, SR was supposed to similar to AC, but by some unknown reason, on 3.0e, is possible for someone to be inside an incendiary cloud and take no damage. On 3.5e, they made an natural acid fog and an ""magical"" acid fog the same and it makes perfectly sense.
3e acid fog https://www.dandwiki.com/wiki/3e_SRD:Acid_Fog
3.5e acid fog https://www.dandwiki.com/wiki/SRD:Acid_Fog
This changes on SR particularly made conjuration of non summons more viable and in certain situations, like against golems, better than evokation. 3.5e makes much more sense than 3.0e in many aspects.
https://metro.co.uk/2019/07/01/baldurs-gate-iii-larian-studios-interview-we-want-to-create-the-state-of-the-art-in-rpgs-10094263/
"I’ve been reading Dungeons & Dragons since I was a kid. Lord of the Rings was my first fantasy series, the second one was Dragonlance from Weis and Hickman. So that’s how I got into it. And when we were thinking about our next game, which we decided wasn’t going to be Divinity, Baldur’s Gate came very high on the list. It was very easy to motivate the team for it. And here we are!"
"GC: [laughs] I really enjoyed the combat in Divinity: Original Sin because of the obvious XCOM influence, but because it’s an adaptation of existing rules does that mean it’ll be very different in Baldur’s Gate III?
SV: Yeah, that’s the one that I’m not answering. [laughs] I will tell you what the idea is though. So, the reason why I’m not saying anything is because combat is something that is so sacred in this, when it comes to Baldur’s Gate, so we want to show it to people rather than just talk about it. However, I can tell you what the idea is. When you play D&D you get thrown challenges that you need to overcome. Some of these challenges require you to go into combat. And to ensure player agency you have to give the player a whole bunch of systems so that they can use them in any way they want to overcome the challenges that are thrown at them. That’s what we did in DOS2 because in DOS2 people come up with craziest ways of winning, unwinnable combat. That’s also what we’ll do in Baldur’s Gate III. You’re going to see combat that is very easy and you’re going to see combat that is hard. You have an entire toolbox at your disposal, which goes beyond just a rule set. It also depends on your imagination, so that you will overcome situations in a variety of ways."
"GC: Another thing I liked about DOS 2 was that it had a sense of humour, which is not common in RPGs. Is that something you can carry through to Baldur’s Gate? Because the originals did have funny characters… I’ve just forgotten his name, but the guy with the hamster.
SV: Minsc and Boo, yeah. So there’s a different tonality to DOS in Baldur’s Gate III, but that doesn’t mean that there’s no room for humour. I guarantee you that you’re going to smile. I’m just thinking of a scene I guarantee that you’re going to smile at for sure. It’s almost impossible not to in that scene."
And I would think that this will require the purchase of a streaming app, either specifically for this game, or that includes this game. Monthly subscription? Everyone in the entertainment media biz right now wants a piece of the Netflix action.
I strongly disagree. D:OS2 got criticized by their homogenized armor system that lead to an homogenized combat from even D:OS1 fans. I really don't think that D:OS resembles D&D. In fact, fells more like an puzzle/strategy game with a lot of modern game design tropes like cooldowns, gear that works more like charname's DNA than actual equipment, etc. He din't mentioned ANYTHING great about BG or D&D on his interview. In fact, every time that i saw he mentioning things about D&D or BG was criticizing it(missing too often, rest-scum, leveling too slow and even spell slots, an system that Dark Souls uses well)
Compare to Solasta interview. At 1:20, they mentioned even fly and climb, things that doesn't exist on cRPG from an long time.... I really miss fly on M&M VI-VIII and Levitation on Morrowind...
edit : the main idea of D&D was not even to be an strategy game. Was "lets pretend that this fiction things like conan exists and we are characters in this universe"
1) GC: "So you’re the guy that wanted to create the game so that your girlfriend could play with you?"
SV: "Yes, that’s me. [laughs] But it works, you know, because it’s turn-based, it’s slower, so people just pick it up and it’s easy to explain as well. But you just have to get them in front of the machine and try it out."
This is the ultimate truth of it. All the arguments about TB being more in-depth or more tactical or this and that are just hogwash. It really comes down to the game playing slower, because many people cannot handle things happening fast. But some people can handle faster gameplay, yet have to be stuck with mind-numbingly slow gameplay for the sake of sales numbers.
2) GC: "So you’re not showing the game here, but when we see it is it going to be something that looks and plays similarly to Divinity: Original Sin? … I never get over how terrible a name that is."
SV: "We are aware of that. [laughs] I know. That’s why we licensed the Baldur’s Gate name."
All: [laughs]
The real question there gets completely avoided by SV. The game is going to look and play like D:OS, which means this will be a D:OS game just using D&D rules, which is what the D:OS fans looking to hijack this game for themselves want.
One does not preclude the other. A game can be approachable and yet deep, tactical and yet fun. One of the great strengths of D:OS is its ability to do this.
The armor system in BG3 will be entirely different.
Oh, and there IS flying in DOS2: check out the Spread Your Wings skill.
@kanisatha @deltago says that his insiders say BG3 will have combat/view similar to the Elder Scrolls series (here - https://forums.beamdog.com/discussion/comment/1080328#Comment_1080328 , more on the Steam forum - https://steamcommunity.com/app/1086940/discussions/0/1643167006261399026/?ctp=2#c1643167006268758257 ).
My BG:EE implementation really just lets a character go through walls; it can't distinguish between walls someone could fly over and walls that couldn't be flown over (e.g. a wall that goes up to the ceiling). But since the latter are almost always indoors, I simply only let flight work outdoors. I also made a similar ethereal mechanic that lets characters go through walls both indoors and outdoors.
Oh, one absolutely precludes the other, and in my estimation it is precisely the D:OS games that prove this. They are superficial, silly farce. They look and feel and play like a Nickelodeon TV show.