Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

Categories

Dark Dreams of Furiae - a new module for NWN:EE! Buy now
Attention, new and old users! Please read the new rules of conduct for the forums, and we hope you enjoy your stay!

Differences between Baldur's Gate's 2E Implementation and 5th edition

SystemSystem Administrator Posts: 154
This discussion was created from comments split from: All you wanted to know about the next Beamdog's project.

Post edited by elminster on

Comments

  • rapsam2003rapsam2003 Member Posts: 1,636
    elminster wrote: »
    #6: Alignments don't really matter

    Alignments still are brought up but barely get any mention in 5e's players handbook. Rogues, Paladins and Rangers can be of any alignment. They are now more of an optional guide.
    This is something, as a player and a DM for 5th Edition for several years, that's become quite an annoyance for me. Alignment used to be a major factor in the game. Now, it's like they're afraid to ask players to even consider alignment (and the moral conundrums that should accompany it).

    [Deleted User]
  • elminsterelminster Member, Developer Posts: 16,000
    rapsam2003 wrote: »
    elminster wrote: »
    #6: Alignments don't really matter

    Alignments still are brought up but barely get any mention in 5e's players handbook. Rogues, Paladins and Rangers can be of any alignment. They are now more of an optional guide.
    This is something, as a player and a DM for 5th Edition for several years, that's become quite an annoyance for me. Alignment used to be a major factor in the game. Now, it's like they're afraid to ask players to even consider alignment (and the moral conundrums that should accompany it).

    Ultimately it's up to the DM to decide if it's important. When I DM I say it's a guideline on how the character would react to situations. The benefit of it being reduced in importance is no more loss of spells at least.

    Except for maybe a paladin breaking its oath. Even then it might just be a change in oath spells and abilities.

  • rapsam2003rapsam2003 Member Posts: 1,636
    elminster wrote: »
    Ultimately it's up to the DM to decide if it's important. When I DM I say it's a guideline on how the character would react to situations. The benefit of it being reduced in importance is no more loss of spells at least.

    Except for maybe a paladin breaking its oath. Even then it might just be a change in oath spells and abilities.
    That's my point. It's a MAJOR blow to "choice and consequence", compared to 3.5 or AD&D2 or even Pathfinder.

    elminster
  • elminsterelminster Member, Developer Posts: 16,000
    edited June 2019
    I guess you just have to handle it a different way now. If your party murders its way through a village then maybe as the DM you have a survivor that saw it happen. They then report it to someone (I know this is kind of a lame example but my brain isn't wanting to think creatively today :) )

    Sjerrierapsam2003
  • elminsterelminster Member, Developer Posts: 16,000
    edited June 2019
    Ohh yea another big change compared to how the BG games handle proficiencies is that in 5E when it comes to weapons you get your proficiencies from your class. A fighter, paladin, or ranger for instance can use all simple and martial weapons with proficiency. Certainly subclasses (especially cleric domains) also grant martial weapon proficiencies. Some races like Elves and Dwarves also grant weapon proficiencies.

    Armor proficiencies (including shield proficiency) works in a similar way.

    Raduziel
  • RaduzielRaduziel Member Posts: 4,716
    edited June 2019
    @elminster

    Apparently the 5th edition took the best of the 2nd and 3rd editions.

    Post edited by Raduziel on
    elminsterThacoBell
  • ThacoBellThacoBell Member Posts: 10,286
    Raduziel wrote: »
    @elminster

    Apparently the 5th edition took the better from the 2nd and 3rd editions.

    That was my impression of it when I played. 5e is really good and a lot of fun.

    elminsterRaduzieldeltago
  • SkipBittmanSkipBittman Member Posts: 146
    edited June 2019
    Thanks for that terrific summary!

    How interesting that over time alignment is de-emphasized and left up to DMs more, despite being such an iconic moral filing system and memeworthy framework. You can see a pompous thinkpiece on this subject, throw in a reference to the once proud virtues of Ultima IV now a series of Unity asset flips.

    elminster
  • elminsterelminster Member, Developer Posts: 16,000
    edited June 2019
    Figured I'd split this off since it was getting a bit off topic for the thread.

    For anyone curious to see 5E in practice this is my character sheet (I'm aware Gazeeb is mispelled, but its a deliberate decision that came about over a debate at the table over how to pronounce Gazib).

    Anyways, in it you can see stuff like my background's (mercenary) feature and some of the other changes. Your proficiencies bonus is not added to your damage so that is why my weapons only have the bonus they do.

  • DanacmDanacm Member Posts: 754
    elminster wrote: »
    I


    #1 Thac0 is gone

    Want to know if you hit an enemy? Assuming you are proficient in a weapon you add your Stat (say strength) bonus with your proficiency bonus (this is based on you character level), roll a D20, and it's compared to an enemy AC. If it's equal or higher you hit.

    On top or that, every class can hit the same level. The mage and the fighter has the same chance to hit without special abilities etc.

  • elminsterelminster Member, Developer Posts: 16,000
    edited June 2019
    Another big thing is that Paladins and Rangers actually have the ability to cast a very small number of spells starting at level 2. So you don't have to wait nearly as long as you do for BGEE.

    ThacoBell
  • DanacmDanacm Member Posts: 754
    elminster wrote: »
    Another big thing is that Paladins and Rangers actually have the ability to cast a very small number of spells starting at level 2. So you don't have to wait nearly as long as you do for BGEE.

    Thats actually very well designed, because its a big difference between them and the fighters.
    It shouldnt be so bad to 2e use that tables 😀

    elminster
  • DJKajuruDJKajuru Member Posts: 3,222
    Another relevant change is about multiclassing: it's similar to 3rd edition (you can multiclass any time you level up, and to any class) though it has been nerfed to avoid certain exploits.

    For example: a mage can get a fighter level, but he won't be able to use all kinds of armor, and since 5e fighters don't get a higher chance to hit enemies (all classes have the same proficiency bonus) it's not going to affect your combat skills that much unless you invest more fighter levels on your character, making him a less powerful mage. I think that it really helps balance the game , in comparison to 3.x where you'd multiclass to all sorts of combinations just to get class abilities and feats.

    Raduziel
  • RaduzielRaduziel Member Posts: 4,716
    How the experience tables work? One for each class (as AD&D) or the same one from every class (as 3.X)?

  • The user and all related content has been deleted.

  • elminsterelminster Member, Developer Posts: 16,000
    edited June 2019
    Have to nitpick just a liiiittle bit
    elminster wrote: »
    #1 Thac0 is gone

    Thac0 isn't "gone," any more than BAB is gone. Thac0 is just a convenient number to remember that is part of the to-hit roll equation.
    The difference is just in how the relevant numbers get plugged into the equation, best expressed like so:

    2E: d20 roll + modifiers + AC > thac0 = hit

    5E: d20 roll + modifiers + prof bonus > AC = hit

    You could rejigger the 5E equation to use thac0, and you could rejigger the 2E equation to use BAB or proficiency bonus.
    elminster wrote: »
    #9 Cantrips are a thing

    Cantrips are spells you can cast as much as you want (3e introduced them I think)

    Cantrips are in 2E. They're just not in this game's version of 2E, unless you use an awesome mod adding them to the game. :wink: 3E actually eliminated the core conceit of cantrips, changing them from "use as much as you want" to "use up to a certain number of spell slots per day," which is silly because that's just spells. Good to know 5E goes back to the 2E version. :smiley:

    The "clerics worship concepts instead of gods" thing is just weird. And IMHO the "bards are sorcerers" thing inherits one if the worst things from 3E. :confused:

    Actually, you didn't mention spellcasting. Correct me if I'm wrong, but my understanding is that 5E makes a major move away from the Vancian system, by allowing wizards to cast spontaneously any spell they have memorized on a given day. I.e. you are limited to your memorized spells, and the number of times you can cast is limited by your spell slots, but for any given slot you can cast any memorized spell.

    Is that correct? That how it seemed to work in a podcast I listened to, and in a cursory glance at the not-very-detailed free rules booklet that WotC released. If I'm getting it right that's a major change. (And IMHO for the better.)

    I mean 'Thac0', in both name and formula, is technically gone. The actual recommended formula from 2E for determining a hit is

    Modified Thac0 - AC >= D20 roll

    The result is the same. The new way is just simpler to understand I think.

    Ok so I guess I forgot you were limited in how many cantrips you could cast in 3E. Either way, I had said in the way 2E is implemented in the BG series they don't exist (I've since updated the title of this thread to reflect this). So it is a change. But back in 2E it looks like Cantrip was an actual 1st level spell that you had to cast.

    Yea I'm not really big myself on the whole "clerics worship a concept" thing. I guess it means that DMs have a harder time justifying the removal of their powers (because they don't have to switch gods). It also means you can be things that you would almost never see in the past. Like there are people out there now playing evil life clerics. I'm not sure I could ever really justify that. But whatever works for people :)

    Yea spellcasting is different by class. My initial post was just meant to be a start to how things were different. But you are right wizards prepare a list of spells that they know. This is based off of their wizard level + their intelligence modifier. They then have those spells available to cast. Any ritual spells they also have in their spellbook can be cast as a ritual (though it takes 10 minutes to cast those in that way and they still need to pay any material costs).

    JuliusBorisov
  • DJKajuruDJKajuru Member Posts: 3,222
    @subtledoctor in 2e cqntrips were 1st level spells (and required memorizing) but I remember there being an *optional* rule where they could be cast spontaneously. In 3rd edition they became level 0 spells, which expanded low level spellcasters usefulness.
    In 5e the game was balanced in a way that wizards can cast unlimited cantrips , and spellcasting for them works as following :

    Wizards have a spellbook and can add new spells on it at anytime (there's a cost in gold, though) , and some of these spells can be memorized .

    Memorized spells count as "spells known" , which is Intelligence modifier + your wizard level (minimum of one spell), so a 1st level wizard of intelligence 16 knows (memorized) 4 spells from his spellbook. To cast any of those four he spends a spell slot, the number and level of spell slots is determined by his level (starts at level 1 with two 1st level slots).

    @Raduziel it's the same XP table for all classes.

    ThacoBellJuliusBorisovelminsterRaduziel
  • [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 0
    edited June 2019
    The user and all related content has been deleted.

  • elminsterelminster Member, Developer Posts: 16,000
    edited June 2019
    I mean what I described is exactly how its taught in 2E.

    r5fu6kico3ee.png

    Either way I think the 5th edition arrangement is just easier to understand. You don't have to know what your Thac0 is, which is based on both your class and your level, all you have to know is what your bonus to your attack roll is (through typically just your stat and proficiency bonus) and add it to your roll. Then the DM compares that to an AC.

    JuliusBorisovDanacmrapsam2003
  • rapsam2003rapsam2003 Member Posts: 1,636
    edited June 2019
    DJKajuru wrote: »
    For example: a mage can get a fighter level, but he won't be able to use all kinds of armor,
    The mage will get access to most armor, however. He gets these new proficiencies: Light and medium armor, shields, simple and martial weapons.

    Unlike AD&D2, there's no "Spellcasting is disabled" AND, unlike 3rd edition, there's no "Armor Spell Failure %"; thus, being a mage/fight proficient in the wearing of medium armor means he can cast any spells he knows in medium armor without any penalties.
    However, without the War Caster feat, a mage canNOT cast spells with a somatic component while using a shield. This makes that feat of the better feats in 5th Edition. It's highly sought after by clerics, Gishes, and pure mages alike.

  • RaduzielRaduziel Member Posts: 4,716
    @DJKajuru Thanks :)

    And thank you all for helping me understand the fifth edition without giving a penny to WotC.

    DJKajuruelminster
  • [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 0
    edited June 2019
    The user and all related content has been deleted.

    Post edited by [Deleted User] on
  • lroumenlroumen Member Posts: 1,989
    edited June 2019
    I'm guessing the formula is more intuitive by not centering around a relative AC0 but looking at absolute values. But i have no experience with it.

    ThacoBell
  • ThacoBellThacoBell Member Posts: 10,286
    While its functionally the same, the simpler language and values makes its more intuitive.

  • VallmyrVallmyr Member, Mobile Tester Posts: 2,394
    The "clerics worship concepts instead of gods" thing is just weird. And IMHO the "bards are sorcerers" thing inherits one if the worst things from 3E.

    Bards exist in a weird place like

    In the lore, they learn their trade hence the different subclasses are Colleges. College of Swords, Valor, Lore, Glamour, Whispers, and Satire (In one of the online articles).

    However their spells are fueled by personality so they scale with charisma.

    Also the worship concepts instead of gods has been there since 3e (and maybe before then). Most of the time the books make the assumption you worship a specific deity.

    I imagine it's more planescape-y to be a "Cleric of Freedom" as opposed to "Cleric of Mielikki".

    ThacoBell
  • ThacoBellThacoBell Member Posts: 10,286
    The basic rule book lists deities and their different spheres that clerics can choose from. So I don't know what people are talking about with the "worshipping concepts" thing. Is that something from a different rulebook?

    Vallmyr
This discussion has been closed.