More cool stuff for you and for your friends do (animate undead army, craft items, etc)
Easier to reach superhuman stats at higher(15~20) levels
Much more deadly magical effects. Petrification, OHKilling spells, etc
Dragons and other legendary creature are stronger
Most of things in game design have trade-offs, for eg, if you give too much freedom to the PC create his charname, he can end up with 3.5e pun puns, if you railroad everything, you can end up with Diablo 3/generic mmoish everyone is a clone. Choices and consequences are often against balance. For eg, an vampire PC could be broken op during the night or in a underdark campaign but useless in an "desert" campaign with few people to feed and a lot of sun. Same with combat mechanics, if you consider a lot of things, you will spend an eternity doing math instead of playing the game. If you doesn't consider a lot of things, the combat is fluid but less immersive and makes less sense.
Some things i honestly think that 5e "overcorrected", for eg, while on 3.5e, was possible to have characters with superhuman attributes at low level, on 5e, is insanely hard to raise anything above 20, even for high level characters. IMO an lv 18~20 Sorcerer with 21~24 CHA should be OK. But an lv 5 guy not.
that goes without saying, see the thing about 3.5, if you are insane and allow your players to grab classes, feats and items from the bajillion books that are available, then yeah, your characters are going to be completely OP
right now, im DMing an epic 3.5 session and the only books allowed are the 3 core rule books and the epic players hand book, and everything is going pretty smooth at the moment, we have only had 2 character deaths and one party wipe and the team just hit level 23
in my opinion, 3.5 is the best for PnP if you have a good DM who knows what they are doing, and really understands the rules so you cant make superhuman characters at level 10 and even at level 20 and above, there should always be something that is a challenge for the characters
in fact for example; the first encounter in my adventure was a colossal black dragon with a CR of 26 and the characters were level 21, and only using monster manual, player's handbook and epic players hand book, the dragon almost wiped the team, if it wasnt for a lucky critical hit that did some critical damage on the dragon, the team would have lost
if i had the same scenario where the players could use as many books as possible, then the players could have probably taken out 10 of those dragons, based on stupid broken OP abilities
and actually speaking about that, in my opinion, i think the reason why the other books were made was to give your adventures a little bit of flare, i think the idea was that you were supposed to use the 3 core rule books as a veto on rules, and then you use an extra book MAYBE two, to spice things up a little bit and make your setting a bit different
i dont think it was ever intentional that you were supposed to use all the rulebooks at once because a lot of abilities do the same thing but in different words, so people would stack those abilities based on that
i always found it strange; what was the point of doing a million d6 damage at level 10 if things only had 100 HP? i feel as if players were ruining the game for themselves by making unstoppable gods, and then they complained that nothing was a challenge, ya no kidding sherlock, thats like saying an FPS is way too easy when you are using the god mode cheat, what did you expect? but maybe im out to lunch and have no idea what im talking about, but for me at least, i enjoy how i do my 3.5 sessions
Only allow this 3 books lead to some problems. For eg, what if i really enjoy warlocks and wanna play as an warlock of Complete Arcane? He is NOT an godlike class, even at epic levels, but is a class that i would love to play. That said, one thing that i love about Pathfinder is that they gived TONS of classes. Most of then OGL and there are much less pun puns than 3.5e.
AS for mixing rules, long years ago, an DM allowed me to play as sorcerer/dragon disciple using Pathfinder rules and was an fun experience.
Both 3.5e and 5e are great by different reasons.
I miss a lot of things from 2e TOO. For eg, plate armor being much more effective vs slashing than blunt is an rule that i don't know why 3.5e/5e won't use...
The unique edition that is completely TRASH is 4e because is more like an pnp generic mmo than an true RPG.
To be honest I never played 4e, we were playing 3.5 and skipped entirely to PF and the Baldur´s gate modules of 5e; but PF has some interesting classes that give a twist of the classic classes, like the inquisitor, the witch, the alchemist, the bloodrager or the magus.
The new classes of Unearthed arcana and critical role: witcher Bloodhunter and artificer are not as interesting for me, frankly.
To be honest I never played 4e, we were playing 3.5 and skipped entirely to PF and the Baldur´s gate modules of 5e; but PF has some interesting classes that give a twist of the classic classes, like the inquisitor, the witch, the alchemist, the bloodrager or the magus.
The new classes of Unearthed arcana and critical role: witcher Bloodhunter and artificer are not as interesting for me, frankly.
Artificer on 3.5e was more interesting due 3.5e crafting system, 5e, will be probably awful(never read) but bloodhunter sounds more like "i wanna play Geralt of Rivia in D&D", just like 5e Dragonborn sounds like "a lot of people wanna play half dragons but they are a broken race, so lets create another race less strong but withtou LA". That said, when Larian will release an gameplay? I was joking posting SCL gameplay and saying that was BG3, but i really wanna see if the game will bemore dos like or bg like and if is a "sequel" or a different story in same BG city...
I keep seeing two things that inconsistent to me. Maybe someone can clear it up. I keep saying people praising 3.5 because it has so many options available and criticize 5 because it is much more limited.
Someone always responds to this with, "Yeah but its really unbalanced and some things are utterly broken."
The defense to this always seems to be, "THat's because you're using too many options. Limit the books allowed and you wont have a problem." So, uh, what's the advantage of 3.5 over 5 again?
Yeah. I dont think you're necessarily off point here. To (try to) explain it though, even the core rulebooks for 3.5 have a decent amount of additional complexity and customization (More skills, and more granularity on how good you are at those skills. Also Feats - in 5e, feats are selectable only a few times over a character's lifetime, while in 3.5, those feats are selected as frequently as every other level for a fighter).
The unfortunate issue is that: even the core rulebooks are somewhat unbalanced - and that lack of balance becomes more pronounced when additional supplements are used. PF has essentially the same issues/benefits, only on steroids (If you like choices, you get waaaaay more - but balance ends up being even more pronounced as an issue).
I don't dislike 5th edition, but I like it far less than 3.5 and 2nd. 5th feels like they simplified everything for people who don't like math, and the power progression just isn't the same.
"It is with a profound sense of regret that today we announce Divinity: Fallen Heroes has been put on hold, as we fondly celebrate the work done so far. We’ve been working with Logic Artists for over a year since before the announcement on March 27, 2019. Though enthused by the reception of the announcement and the energy of our fans, we have taken many things into consideration over the course of the last few months, and today we’re ready to talk about its future.
(...)
Going forward, we at Larian will continue to work on Baldur’s Gate 3 with news coming soon, and Logic Artists will be focusing on their own Expeditions games. As an independent developer ourselves, we understand and value the importance of a developer investing into their own IPs, and their own future.
We’re sorry for the players excited for Fallen Heroes, who will have to wait an unspecified period of time, but we strongly believe that bringing Fallen Heroes to fans should be done in a timeline that allows it to be developed soundly.
This game looks really good! So looking forward to this! Been in this saga for half my life now, cant wait to get the rest to complete the last puzzles of my life
"It is with a profound sense of regret that today we announce Divinity: Fallen Heroes has been put on hold, as we fondly celebrate the work done so far. We’ve been working with Logic Artists for over a year since before the announcement on March 27, 2019. Though enthused by the reception of the announcement and the energy of our fans, we have taken many things into consideration over the course of the last few months, and today we’re ready to talk about its future.
(...)
Going forward, we at Larian will continue to work on Baldur’s Gate 3 with news coming soon, and Logic Artists will be focusing on their own Expeditions games. As an independent developer ourselves, we understand and value the importance of a developer investing into their own IPs, and their own future.
We’re sorry for the players excited for Fallen Heroes, who will have to wait an unspecified period of time, but we strongly believe that bringing Fallen Heroes to fans should be done in a timeline that allows it to be developed soundly.
Have any of you played the Expedition games? They're pretty good. I wasnt aware that they had partnered with Larian to make a game, so I'm sad that's not going to work. That said, I'm also happy to see they're going to continue working on their own IPs.
Nothing new, but nice to hear Larian boss speaking in your native language
When he speaks English, it is definitely Dutch English, similar to the English of Lennart Sas, boss of Age of Wonders. But when I hear those two speak Dutch, their accent is entirely different, Sven with fluffy Flemish, Lennart with hoarse Hollandish.
Vincke's French is evidently fluent, yet you wouldn't take him for a Frenchman I guess. Especially his r. And when he wants to convince: a Frenchman would do that with an entirely different melody.
So this is a story of a whole race of aliens, arriving by spaceplane-ship, and your little party is going to save the world.
I only know about mind flayers through some episodes of Critical Role I saw last year, but they didn't exactly appeal to me. Compared to glorious dragons, or inventive sorcerers, or old fashioned green skins, they are dark and depressing.
So how is the game going to even that with Larian's burly Belgian surrealism?
So this is a story of a whole race of aliens, arriving by spaceplane-ship, and your little party is going to save the world.
I only know about mind flayers through some episodes of Critical Role I saw last year, but they didn't exactly appeal to me. Compared to glorious dragons, or inventive sorcerers, or old fashioned green skins, they are dark and depressing.
So how is the game going to even that with Larian's burly Belgian surrealism?
I understand why some wouldn't be too keen on mind flayers, since, with their Lovecraftian influence, they do tend to stand in rather stark contrast to the more traditional folklore-inspired monsters.
All I can say, though, is to give them a chance. The mind flayers (or Illithid) been a staple of DnD since the very beginning, and along with beholders, rust monsters, and gelatinous cubes, they represent the resplendently weird part of the game that was as much a part of Gary Gygax's imagination as orcs and elves. They're actually the main reason I'm looking forward to BGIII.
Also, the phrase "burly Belgian surrealism" only brings to mind Jean-Claude van Damme's dance scene from "Kickboxer."
I only know about mind flayers through some episodes of Critical Role I saw last year, but they didn't exactly appeal to me. Compared to glorious dragons, or inventive sorcerers, or old fashioned green skins, they are dark and depressing.
I agree. I'm really not into the whole Cthulhu thing, I find it grim and it feels more like science fiction than fantasy to me. I know Mind Flayers have been in D&D from the start but for me that is one of the problems of the game - it just took creatures from every mythos and lumped them together into one unholy mess.
A big new interview. It looks like the game won't be a "D:OS reskin".
"We’ve taken a lot of creative risks, more than people will expect, I think, considering the amount of money we’re throwing at it."
This doesn't sound like they will just make a D:OS game for BG.
And also a part explaining how Swen likes D&D. A few people in this thread questioned that, considering he comes from Belgium.
"Where I was born, nobody had a computer. Nobody played D&D, but this was one thing that interested me. My first fantasy books were D&D, Dragonlance, after The Lord of the Rings. They were hidden in an obscure corner in the library. Nobody was really into it, not as much as you guys have over here. I always wanted to play pen and paper. I always wanted to play D&D. When I discovered RPGs, I said, “Well, this is how you should be playing those things, but at a computer and you can play with other people elsewhere.”"
Larian is making Baldur's Gate 3 now and Baldur's Gate is such a beloved franchise. How are you going to live up with the fans' expectations?
Swen: I don't think we can live up to the expectations. I think that's impossible. Those expectations are soaring through to the roof. What we're doing is we're making our type of Dungeons & Dragons with a lot of love for what came before and with also putting our own stamp on it.
That's literally the only way we could approach it. We don't want to make a clone of Baldur's Gate 2. We want to make Baldur's Gate 3. It's based on the 5th edition of Dungeons & Dragons so there's a lot of stuff that I think that we're going to add into it. There are also innovations and things you haven't seen before but we'll never know which one the fans are going to like it or not. I hope the fans like it because we put a lot of effort into it.
Have you asked the previous developers BioWare and Interplay about making Baldur's Gate 3?
Swen: Well, the team who made previous Baldur's Gate games have spread around but we talked to a whole lot of them. We chatted with them about how to do it. We also talked to the people of Wizards of the Coast obviously since they're the owner of Dungeons & Dragons. So we came up with something that I think it's good. We'll see.
I'm fascinated by how you're able to translate tabletop gameplay to video games. Tabletop games are quite complex already. Will Baldur's Gate 3 has the gameplay mechanics similar to Divinity: Original Sin?
Swen: No, it's not the same as Divinity: Original Sin. It's very different at its core. For me, the biggest difference is probably the class-based gameplay. The similarity, however, is that both Divinity: Original Sin and Baldur's Gate 3 will try to give you a lot of player agency. You decide to do something. The Dungeon Master thinks and says, "Sure, roll D20". They just check and we'll see if it goes or not. That's the fun of it.
We're trying to do the same but in a video game, the game itself becomes the Dungeon Master. So we have to figure out upfront on what you're going to be doing, for example, in terms of stupidity and have the game world reacts to you. That's what we want to try. I think we have cool stuff in there.
How can someone make something "With a lot of love" for a previous installment, but then throw all the lore and story from it out the window in favor of other media? How exactly is using the Novel and P&P version of events at all respectful of the series?
I don't think they can live up to your expectations, @ThacoBell . What they are going to do is to make their type of DnD with a lot of love for what came before (with their understanding of what BG is) with also putting their own stamp on it. The game doesn't require to be the direct sequel to feel like it has something common with a game from 20 years ago.
I completley disagree. Wanting the game called "BG3" to defer to the events and lore of the the games that it is MARKETED as a sequel of, is not a high bar. Favoring spinoff lore is in fact DISRESPECTFUL to the franchise. Its the bare minimum for treating an IP with respect, not some impassable wall. There is zero reason that Larian should not be able to do this.
Yep. This is your expectations regarding what BG3 should be. Others have their own expectations. They say right there they can't live up to that and will try to create their own BG3 and then players will evaluate.
How can someone make something "With a lot of love" for a previous installment, but then throw all the lore and story from it out the window in favor of other media? How exactly is using the Novel and P&P version of events at all respectful of the series?
And heavily criticize mechanics of previous games?
I was expecting a SCL but now i an more NEUTRAL. When i see any gameplay, i can judge...
this game is going to be for console, i was watching youtube the other day for the new "xbox" console whatever that thing is called, and they were showing quick 1 second trailers for all the games that are going to be for it and they showed BG3
so however the game is going to be made, it definitely is going to be console friendly, and they have been making this thing before beamdog ported the IE games to console so i doubt they are going to be using the same console mechanics unless by fluke
so it makes me curious how it is going to be played like?
I've been neutral from the beginning.. I do not expect more than cameos or references to the original story. That one is over.
A modern day BG game has to deal with the return of Bhaal and all the other stuff that happened in the Realms since.
I have no idea what the game play will be like so I have absolutely no opinion about it.
In other words I'll wait for more information before I can form an opinion. I just don't know enough yet. My only opinion is that I liked the animation Very Blizzard in style Actually I know quite a bit more about Diablo IV than I know about BG III
I completley disagree. Wanting the game called "BG3" to defer to the events and lore of the the games that it is MARKETED as a sequel of, is not a high bar. Favoring spinoff lore is in fact DISRESPECTFUL to the franchise. Its the bare minimum for treating an IP with respect, not some impassable wall. There is zero reason that Larian should not be able to do this.
it's like how fallout fans feel about the games made by Bethesda [ 3,4 and 76].
it's like how fallout fans feel about the games made by Bethesda [ 3,4 and 76].
Riffing off of what @JuliusBorisov said, expectations differ from person to person. I played Fallout 1 and 2 (Both when 2 released), but I'm also a fan of Fallout 3 and 4 (Never played 76).
Expectations differ from person to person. I think it's wise of Larian to realize that they cannot make everyone happy, and that their best bet is to make the best possible game that *they* can live with, and attach it to the franchise they hold in such high esteem.
Hence why the best course of action is for potential customers to not ride the hype train and instead just wait how it all unfolds. After a year or two it's save to assume all major bugs were fixed, all DLC's have rolled out and the modding community has firmly established itself on the nexus. And as a bonus it will by then have become reasonably cheaper as well.
Comments
Only allow this 3 books lead to some problems. For eg, what if i really enjoy warlocks and wanna play as an warlock of Complete Arcane? He is NOT an godlike class, even at epic levels, but is a class that i would love to play. That said, one thing that i love about Pathfinder is that they gived TONS of classes. Most of then OGL and there are much less pun puns than 3.5e.
AS for mixing rules, long years ago, an DM allowed me to play as sorcerer/dragon disciple using Pathfinder rules and was an fun experience.
Both 3.5e and 5e are great by different reasons.
I miss a lot of things from 2e TOO. For eg, plate armor being much more effective vs slashing than blunt is an rule that i don't know why 3.5e/5e won't use...
The unique edition that is completely TRASH is 4e because is more like an pnp generic mmo than an true RPG.
The new classes of Unearthed arcana and critical role: witcher Bloodhunter and artificer are not as interesting for me, frankly.
Artificer on 3.5e was more interesting due 3.5e crafting system, 5e, will be probably awful(never read) but bloodhunter sounds more like "i wanna play Geralt of Rivia in D&D", just like 5e Dragonborn sounds like "a lot of people wanna play half dragons but they are a broken race, so lets create another race less strong but withtou LA". That said, when Larian will release an gameplay? I was joking posting SCL gameplay and saying that was BG3, but i really wanna see if the game will bemore dos like or bg like and if is a "sequel" or a different story in same BG city...
Yeah. I dont think you're necessarily off point here. To (try to) explain it though, even the core rulebooks for 3.5 have a decent amount of additional complexity and customization (More skills, and more granularity on how good you are at those skills. Also Feats - in 5e, feats are selectable only a few times over a character's lifetime, while in 3.5, those feats are selected as frequently as every other level for a fighter).
The unfortunate issue is that: even the core rulebooks are somewhat unbalanced - and that lack of balance becomes more pronounced when additional supplements are used. PF has essentially the same issues/benefits, only on steroids (If you like choices, you get waaaaay more - but balance ends up being even more pronounced as an issue).
I'll take 2e with house rules anyday though.
On the future of Fallen Heroes
source : http://forums.larian.com//ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=656219&#Post656219
Have any of you played the Expedition games? They're pretty good. I wasnt aware that they had partnered with Larian to make a game, so I'm sad that's not going to work. That said, I'm also happy to see they're going to continue working on their own IPs.
If there is some french speaking people, I stumble across this video today :
It was shot in june at E3. Nothing new, but nice to hear Larian boss speaking in your native language
When he speaks English, it is definitely Dutch English, similar to the English of Lennart Sas, boss of Age of Wonders. But when I hear those two speak Dutch, their accent is entirely different, Sven with fluffy Flemish, Lennart with hoarse Hollandish.
Vincke's French is evidently fluent, yet you wouldn't take him for a Frenchman I guess. Especially his r. And when he wants to convince: a Frenchman would do that with an entirely different melody.
I only know about mind flayers through some episodes of Critical Role I saw last year, but they didn't exactly appeal to me. Compared to glorious dragons, or inventive sorcerers, or old fashioned green skins, they are dark and depressing.
So how is the game going to even that with Larian's burly Belgian surrealism?
I understand why some wouldn't be too keen on mind flayers, since, with their Lovecraftian influence, they do tend to stand in rather stark contrast to the more traditional folklore-inspired monsters.
All I can say, though, is to give them a chance. The mind flayers (or Illithid) been a staple of DnD since the very beginning, and along with beholders, rust monsters, and gelatinous cubes, they represent the resplendently weird part of the game that was as much a part of Gary Gygax's imagination as orcs and elves. They're actually the main reason I'm looking forward to BGIII.
Also, the phrase "burly Belgian surrealism" only brings to mind Jean-Claude van Damme's dance scene from "Kickboxer."
EDIT: Or maybe this gif.
I agree. I'm really not into the whole Cthulhu thing, I find it grim and it feels more like science fiction than fantasy to me. I know Mind Flayers have been in D&D from the start but for me that is one of the problems of the game - it just took creatures from every mythos and lumped them together into one unholy mess.
"We’ve taken a lot of creative risks, more than people will expect, I think, considering the amount of money we’re throwing at it."
This doesn't sound like they will just make a D:OS game for BG.
And also a part explaining how Swen likes D&D. A few people in this thread questioned that, considering he comes from Belgium.
"Where I was born, nobody had a computer. Nobody played D&D, but this was one thing that interested me. My first fantasy books were D&D, Dragonlance, after The Lord of the Rings. They were hidden in an obscure corner in the library. Nobody was really into it, not as much as you guys have over here. I always wanted to play pen and paper. I always wanted to play D&D. When I discovered RPGs, I said, “Well, this is how you should be playing those things, but at a computer and you can play with other people elsewhere.”"
https://www.gameinformer.com/interview/2019/11/07/a-knight-in-shining-armor-swen-vincke-talks-the-long-road-of-larian-studios
Larian is making Baldur's Gate 3 now and Baldur's Gate is such a beloved franchise. How are you going to live up with the fans' expectations?
Swen: I don't think we can live up to the expectations. I think that's impossible. Those expectations are soaring through to the roof. What we're doing is we're making our type of Dungeons & Dragons with a lot of love for what came before and with also putting our own stamp on it.
That's literally the only way we could approach it. We don't want to make a clone of Baldur's Gate 2. We want to make Baldur's Gate 3. It's based on the 5th edition of Dungeons & Dragons so there's a lot of stuff that I think that we're going to add into it. There are also innovations and things you haven't seen before but we'll never know which one the fans are going to like it or not. I hope the fans like it because we put a lot of effort into it.
Have you asked the previous developers BioWare and Interplay about making Baldur's Gate 3?
Swen: Well, the team who made previous Baldur's Gate games have spread around but we talked to a whole lot of them. We chatted with them about how to do it. We also talked to the people of Wizards of the Coast obviously since they're the owner of Dungeons & Dragons. So we came up with something that I think it's good. We'll see.
I'm fascinated by how you're able to translate tabletop gameplay to video games. Tabletop games are quite complex already. Will Baldur's Gate 3 has the gameplay mechanics similar to Divinity: Original Sin?
Swen: No, it's not the same as Divinity: Original Sin. It's very different at its core. For me, the biggest difference is probably the class-based gameplay. The similarity, however, is that both Divinity: Original Sin and Baldur's Gate 3 will try to give you a lot of player agency. You decide to do something. The Dungeon Master thinks and says, "Sure, roll D20". They just check and we'll see if it goes or not. That's the fun of it.
We're trying to do the same but in a video game, the game itself becomes the Dungeon Master. So we have to figure out upfront on what you're going to be doing, for example, in terms of stupidity and have the game world reacts to you. That's what we want to try. I think we have cool stuff in there.
And heavily criticize mechanics of previous games?
I was expecting a SCL but now i an more NEUTRAL. When i see any gameplay, i can judge...
so however the game is going to be made, it definitely is going to be console friendly, and they have been making this thing before beamdog ported the IE games to console so i doubt they are going to be using the same console mechanics unless by fluke
so it makes me curious how it is going to be played like?
A modern day BG game has to deal with the return of Bhaal and all the other stuff that happened in the Realms since.
I have no idea what the game play will be like so I have absolutely no opinion about it.
In other words I'll wait for more information before I can form an opinion. I just don't know enough yet. My only opinion is that I liked the animation
it's like how fallout fans feel about the games made by Bethesda [ 3,4 and 76].
Riffing off of what @JuliusBorisov said, expectations differ from person to person. I played Fallout 1 and 2 (Both when 2 released), but I'm also a fan of Fallout 3 and 4 (Never played 76).
Expectations differ from person to person. I think it's wise of Larian to realize that they cannot make everyone happy, and that their best bet is to make the best possible game that *they* can live with, and attach it to the franchise they hold in such high esteem.