- Too much use of plot devices to bring back characters that should otherwise be dead already. Minsc is back, apparently Volo too, and through the exact same plot device it seems.
- the above one is not 100% in line with OP's question but ties into this one: too many familiar faces. At least don't bring them back just for their recognizability, or to legitimize the current "3" in the title. Characters that DO return without plot device (i.e. are simply 100 years older) should be treated as such. Barring mentioned plot device, humans are dead, and Jaheira is probably a crusty old bat by now. And the naturally longer lived characters should be VERY HIGH LEVEL, and not demoted to level 3 just because the party meets them at level 3.
- Stereotypical characters, like the sneaky halfling rogue, or the aloof elven wizard. I would be fine with different personality/class combos though, like a heroic elven mage. Give me a drow that is actually a drow and not an exile in some form. And on that note:
This may end up an unpopular thing for me to say here but ... I do not want to see as much combat in this game as there was in the original games.
If being as true to tabletop gaming as possible is a core goal for this game, the game should not have that much combat. In a typical tabletop D&D session, combat is NOT what is central to the game. Exploring, investigating, figuring things out, talking, using non-combat skills and abilities, etc., these are the things that make up the bulk of play-time. This is what I want most of all in this game, even though I know I'm not going to get this because for most gamers today all those things I listed above are boring.
I don't want to see that ridiculous travel system. Nobody spends 6 days on the road without resting. I don't mind the random encounters, those have always been part of D&D.
But then, don't replace it with those silly portals like in D:OS.
I really liked the resting system in Pathfinder... Setting up a hunter, someone who tries to hide camp, guards and a cook with interaction between npcs happening in the rest period. I would like to see something like that in BG III.
I agree! The resting system was really cool. The only thing in p:km that was weird was that food rations weighed more than fullplate mails, though perhaps that has been patched since last I played.
I agree! The resting system was really cool. The only thing in p:km that was weird was that food rations weighed more than fullplate mails, though perhaps that has been patched since last I played.
I don't know what they originally were, but they are 10lbs each now. Which is pretty heavy - but then I also hate the idea of spending something like 8 hour hunting and then 9 hours resting : P
I agree, though. I like the resting/traveling system. Perchance, has anyone ever played the Expedition: Vikings (or Expedition: Conquistador) games? They had a good resting system too. If done right, they have be rewarding.
I agree! The resting system was really cool. The only thing in p:km that was weird was that food rations weighed more than fullplate mails, though perhaps that has been patched since last I played.
I don't know what they originally were, but they are 10lbs each now. Which is pretty heavy - but then I also hate the idea of spending something like 8 hour hunting and then 9 hours resting : P
I agree, though. I like the resting/traveling system. Perchance, has anyone ever played the Expedition: Vikings (or Expedition: Conquistador) games? They had a good resting system too. If done right, they have be rewarding.
I did buy the Expeditions:Vikings and played up to the first city and some quests in it, but quit since I didn't quite enjoy the game. I don't remember the resting system, but IIRC you assigned jobs as well, like guarding and reparations etc?
I don't want a rest system where you just press the button until you get to rest without and encounter or being woken up by a guard.
I don't want single maps where you spawn at the start and constantly have to make your way to the other side and through a loading screen or four before getting to your destination.
Unfinished quests or content, looking at you Mind Flayers and The Twisted Rune.
Having to re-identify items again and again, eg Arrows + 1 or Sword + 1. If your wizard does it once they should have the knowledge when they come across another.
I would personally dislike random loot and level scaling.
An overly open map is also something I don't really want..
I do not want that a chance to explore a characters personality (and their character development) is gated behind a romance, even though I fully admit that I really really want romance options in it..
I don't want an overly large companion cast (BG2 hat a good balance there) and I don't want that all companions get along. Also, no base where you send companions that don't fit in your party!
Who you chose to take with you should be a choice and not jsut a conisderation who is most useful for the next part..
On topic of companions: No cultural rebels please.. If you give us an illithid follower let him stay eviil and just disagree with the goal or method, no need to have a good rebel..
Another thing: If you add evil characters or routes, don't make them jerks. Evil does not need to be rude and unfriendly to show that they are the bad guys. You can be cordial and still sacrifice elves!
And my personaly pet peeve: No good dragons. Seriously, I dislike dragons already, but good ones tick me off even more.. x_x
I did buy the Expeditions:Vikings and played up to the first city and some quests in it, but quit since I didn't quite enjoy the game. I don't remember the resting system, but IIRC you assigned jobs as well, like guarding and reparations etc?
Yeah - very similar to PF:KM.
Do not want: One companion for every class. Leave some classes unfilles by companions, so the player can have a more unique role.
Optimized companion stats. I don't need every companion to be min-maxed. Reasonably balanced stat distributions please. No overly bad ones (Tiax) and no overly great ones (Edwin).
+5 anything. 5e only goes to +3 weapons and armor, so let's stick with that.
don't use the reputation system. it is the most pointless thing in the bg series and does not add anything. it's almost as bad as the karma system in the fallout series.
don't use the reputation system. it is the most pointless thing in the bg series and does not add anything. it's almost as bad as the karma system in the fallout series.
Definitely agree. Plus, given that they're following 5e, for interactions with folks that populate the game world I think it will probably mimic tabletop, i.e., ability checks, use of Persuasion and Deception, etc.
The only part of p&p canon that overrides the game canon is that the Bhaalspawn is named Abdel and was male.
If WotC decide to fully make that canon and not jsut have Abdel as a placeholder for the module and keep the identity of the hero of Baldurs Gate vague in other publications.
Oh, there is another bit: If the comics are canon than Minsc traveled with Neera some time.
I would personally dislike random loot and level scaling.
An overly open map is also something I don't really want..
I do not want that a chance to explore a characters personality (and their character development) is gated behind a romance, even though I fully admit that I really really want romance options in it..
I don't want an overly large companion cast (BG2 hat a good balance there) and I don't want that all companions get along. Also, no base where you send companions that don't fit in your party!
Who you chose to take with you should be a choice and not jsut a conisderation who is most useful for the next part..
On topic of companions: No cultural rebels please.. If you give us an illithid follower let him stay eviil and just disagree with the goal or method, no need to have a good rebel..
Another thing: If you add evil characters or routes, don't make them jerks. Evil does not need to be rude and unfriendly to show that they are the bad guys. You can be cordial and still sacrifice elves!
And my personaly pet peeve: No good dragons. Seriously, I dislike dragons already, but good ones tick me off even more.. x_x
I mostly agree, but no good dragons? Good dragons are as much a thing as evil dragons in Dungeons & DRAGONS. And an evil silver dragon would be yet another, as you say it, "cultural rebel".
I would personally dislike random loot and level scaling.
An overly open map is also something I don't really want..
I do not want that a chance to explore a characters personality (and their character development) is gated behind a romance, even though I fully admit that I really really want romance options in it..
I don't want an overly large companion cast (BG2 hat a good balance there) and I don't want that all companions get along. Also, no base where you send companions that don't fit in your party!
Who you chose to take with you should be a choice and not jsut a conisderation who is most useful for the next part..
On topic of companions: No cultural rebels please.. If you give us an illithid follower let him stay eviil and just disagree with the goal or method, no need to have a good rebel..
Another thing: If you add evil characters or routes, don't make them jerks. Evil does not need to be rude and unfriendly to show that they are the bad guys. You can be cordial and still sacrifice elves!
And my personaly pet peeve: No good dragons. Seriously, I dislike dragons already, but good ones tick me off even more.. x_x
I mostly agree, but no good dragons? Good dragons are as much a thing as evil dragons in Dungeons & DRAGONS. And an evil silver dragon would be yet another, as you say it, "cultural rebel".
Yeah if anything there MUST be good dragons, dragons I can talk to, befriend, get quests/unique items, maybe even become allies.
I would personally dislike random loot and level scaling.
An overly open map is also something I don't really want..
I do not want that a chance to explore a characters personality (and their character development) is gated behind a romance, even though I fully admit that I really really want romance options in it..
I don't want an overly large companion cast (BG2 hat a good balance there) and I don't want that all companions get along. Also, no base where you send companions that don't fit in your party!
Who you chose to take with you should be a choice and not jsut a conisderation who is most useful for the next part..
On topic of companions: No cultural rebels please.. If you give us an illithid follower let him stay eviil and just disagree with the goal or method, no need to have a good rebel..
Another thing: If you add evil characters or routes, don't make them jerks. Evil does not need to be rude and unfriendly to show that they are the bad guys. You can be cordial and still sacrifice elves!
And my personaly pet peeve: No good dragons. Seriously, I dislike dragons already, but good ones tick me off even more.. x_x
I mostly agree, but no good dragons? Good dragons are as much a thing as evil dragons in Dungeons & DRAGONS. And an evil silver dragon would be yet another, as you say it, "cultural rebel".
Yeah if anything there MUST be good dragons, dragons I can talk to, befriend, get quests/unique items, maybe even become allies.
Was that sarcasm? I can't tell. Anyhow, I never said dragons should be friendly, sympathetic, or even in the game. Just that good dragons are canon. On that note, they sometimes hide in big cities among humanoids on purpose. I could imagine a questline where you meet a person, get a couple quests from them to stabilize the city, only to find extremely subtle hints that they might be a dragon in disguise, never breaking it. Again, not saying they should, but canonically they could, and to my knowledge it hasn't been done in a crpg.
@kanisatha
Well, I know that there are good(ish) dragons in D&D lore, but that doesn't mean I like that part..
But yeah, that is mostly my deep aversion towards dragons (and my personal expectations when it comes to these winged nuiscances).
..Yeah I forgot about the Human male part..
But I honestly never thought Charname last all of his bhaal essence... I think I need to replay ToB sometimes, maybe I just missed & forgot that part.. Especially since it seems everyone else seems to think so.
I always thought the Bhaals essence was integral to their live and thus it is not possible to resurrect Bhaalspawns (aside from Imoen, but that is because she is too awesome for Bhaal ofc).
Because without the essence the body can not live.
Mhm, that essence part kinda damages my perception on how being a Bhaalspawn worked, I need to recheck a bunch of things and if I overlooked that part I need to rebuild my understanding of the lore.. x_x
I would personally dislike random loot and level scaling.
An overly open map is also something I don't really want..
I do not want that a chance to explore a characters personality (and their character development) is gated behind a romance, even though I fully admit that I really really want romance options in it..
I don't want an overly large companion cast (BG2 hat a good balance there) and I don't want that all companions get along. Also, no base where you send companions that don't fit in your party!
Who you chose to take with you should be a choice and not jsut a conisderation who is most useful for the next part..
On topic of companions: No cultural rebels please.. If you give us an illithid follower let him stay eviil and just disagree with the goal or method, no need to have a good rebel..
Another thing: If you add evil characters or routes, don't make them jerks. Evil does not need to be rude and unfriendly to show that they are the bad guys. You can be cordial and still sacrifice elves!
And my personaly pet peeve: No good dragons. Seriously, I dislike dragons already, but good ones tick me off even more.. x_x
I mostly agree, but no good dragons? Good dragons are as much a thing as evil dragons in Dungeons & DRAGONS. And an evil silver dragon would be yet another, as you say it, "cultural rebel".
Yeah if anything there MUST be good dragons, dragons I can talk to, befriend, get quests/unique items, maybe even become allies.
Was that sarcasm? I can't tell. Anyhow, I never said dragons should be friendly, sympathetic, or even in the game. Just that good dragons are canon. On that note, they sometimes hide in big cities among humanoids on purpose. I could imagine a questline where you meet a person, get a couple quests from them to stabilize the city, only to find extremely subtle hints that they might be a dragon in disguise, never breaking it. Again, not saying they should, but canonically they could, and to my knowledge it hasn't been done in a crpg.
Not at all. I find dragons to be awesome, and games not allowing you to do anything other than kill them has long been a source of irritation for me. In the FR novels characters interact with dragons quite often, and there are even instances of chromatic dragons willing to work with humanoids over some common interest.
@kanisatha
Well, I know that there are good(ish) dragons in D&D lore, but that doesn't mean I like that part..
Metallic dragons are all true good dragons, though golds tend to be also very arrogant and condescending toward humans. Silvers and coppers on the other hand go out of their way to seek out humanoid companionship.
If they implement sorcerer bloodlines, please no "you can only be an sorcerer of red draconic bloodline BS", red dragons are the most human hating species. Is more likely to see an devil with an celestial blooline than an human/elf/insert_charname_race with red draconic bloodline. Pathfinder Kingmaker implemented most types, except the msot excotic ones like Prism. And you can even get wings as an silver dragon sorcerer and the wings are different among celestials and dragons.
If they implement sorcerer bloodlines, please no "you can only be an sorcerer of red draconic bloodline BS", red dragons are the most human hating species. Is more likely to see an devil with an celestial blooline than an human/elf/insert_charname_race with red draconic bloodline. Pathfinder Kingmaker implemented most types, except the msot excotic ones like Prism. And you can even get wings as an silver dragon sorcerer and the wings are different among celestials and dragons.
Ehhh, I'd disagree about the devil with a celestial bloodline part. It's more likely that the Red Dragon ancestor simply enjoyed raping humanoid females as a means of displaying his absolute power over his captives/subjects. Regardless though, I agree with you in that sorcerer bloodlines should be more varied in their choices. Aside from dragons, descendants of outsiders, fey, or elementals (such as genies) are equally valid origins for a sorcerer's powers.
If they implement sorcerer bloodlines, please no "you can only be an sorcerer of red draconic bloodline BS", red dragons are the most human hating species. Is more likely to see an devil with an celestial blooline than an human/elf/insert_charname_race with red draconic bloodline. Pathfinder Kingmaker implemented most types, except the msot excotic ones like Prism. And you can even get wings as an silver dragon sorcerer and the wings are different among celestials and dragons.
Ehhh, I'd disagree about the devil with a celestial bloodline part. It's more likely that the Red Dragon ancestor simply enjoyed raping humanoid females as a means of displaying his absolute power over his captives/subjects. Regardless though, I agree with you in that sorcerer bloodlines should be more varied in their choices. Aside from dragons, descendants of outsiders, fey, or elementals (such as genies) are equally valid origins for a sorcerer's powers.
But in order to do that, the red dragon in question needs to be in human form. I don't think that an red dragon would wanna do that... Anyway, having such type of bloodline should impact the character background and "story". On Manga Bastard, Kall Su had an human mother and cold dragon father and it affected him in a very significant way. Details of his story without impacting much the narrative in spoilers
"Kall-Su was the son of a human woman, and an unknown father (though suggested to have been an Ice-Dragon in human form.) Kall-Su was feared and hated by the people of his mother's village, and was ostracized. Eventually, after several years of this, Kall-Su's mother attempted to kill him using the magic sword the Ice Falchion, believing its power would inhibit his healing abilities. Kall-Su survived, and instinctively used his magical abilities to kill his mother, and then the village which had drove her to murder. He was soon after found by Dark Schneider who was accompanied by Arshes Nei who was still a child at the time."
Not at all. I find dragons to be awesome, and games not allowing you to do anything other than kill them has long been a source of irritation for me. In the FR novels characters interact with dragons quite often, and there are even instances of chromatic dragons willing to work with humanoids over some common interest.
Yes! While I love killing dragons for their awesome loot I don't want a rainbow check card of coloured dragons to kill. In BG2 you must have crippled the Dragon population for centuries to come.
But in order to do that, the red dragon in question needs to be in human form. I don't think that an red dragon would wanna do that... Anyway, having such type of bloodline should impact the character background and "story".
That's actually NOT required, despite what people might think. According to rulebooks, it simply states that "due to a dragon's magical nature, they are able to interbreed with many other creatures". (Similarly, it's how other outsiders or deities can impregnate mortal creatures while in their normal forms. The drow ritual coupling that produces the creatures known as draegloths is one such example.) So a dragon could simply reduce its size instead via various spells for the act (that is, if it actually intended the victim to survive. I wouldn't put it past a particularly cruel chromatic dragon to simply rape his victims to death.)
But again, yes, if bloodlines or similar origins are going to get included, I'd hope that they are varied enough to allow for a wide choice for players, but ALSO interwoven enough with the story to make them meaningful. One thing I absolutely LOVED in Dragon Age: Origins was how your choice of origin could DRASTICALLY change key points in the story. For instance, if you never tried out the Dwarf Noble origin, you probably didn't see much difference between supporting Bhelen or Harrowmont to be the next King, but if you were a Dwarf Noble... Hehe, you probably had a MUCH more personal stake in not seeing Bhelen win (even if it turns out that Bhelen would prove a much better choice for the future of the dwarven race).
Dragon disciples also can be created because a wizard did it "the great power wielded by these creatures has long intrigued wizards and alchemists who have sought various magical methods to infuse their bodies with draconic power".
ED: Disregard this, you were talking about other game.
At least you only need to have a draconic ancestor. I remember that in 3.5e, back in the day you actually were a disciple of a Dragon, you train with it and (If I remember correctly) you made your own egg dragon, put yourself in and when you hach you awake as a red dragon/silver dragon disciple. Way fair in Pathfinder XD
And here come a the most hated opinion in The forum...
The exact same stuff that was in bg, 1, 2, and throne of bhaal. Quite honestly, I won't even bother to play it if it's stIll following the same mechanic second edition rules. Call me whatever name you want but if I wanted to play the exact same game again I'd replay the trilogy. I careless about staying true to the original trilogy than I do in actually seeing an attempt at innovating the game something a lot of fans I've notice, hate.
I prefer to see it branch off and grow into it's own entity than see it be constrained.
Comments
- Too much use of plot devices to bring back characters that should otherwise be dead already. Minsc is back, apparently Volo too, and through the exact same plot device it seems.
- the above one is not 100% in line with OP's question but ties into this one: too many familiar faces. At least don't bring them back just for their recognizability, or to legitimize the current "3" in the title. Characters that DO return without plot device (i.e. are simply 100 years older) should be treated as such. Barring mentioned plot device, humans are dead, and Jaheira is probably a crusty old bat by now. And the naturally longer lived characters should be VERY HIGH LEVEL, and not demoted to level 3 just because the party meets them at level 3.
- Stereotypical characters, like the sneaky halfling rogue, or the aloof elven wizard. I would be fine with different personality/class combos though, like a heroic elven mage. Give me a drow that is actually a drow and not an exile in some form. And on that note:
- a chaotic good drow ranger as party member.
If being as true to tabletop gaming as possible is a core goal for this game, the game should not have that much combat. In a typical tabletop D&D session, combat is NOT what is central to the game. Exploring, investigating, figuring things out, talking, using non-combat skills and abilities, etc., these are the things that make up the bulk of play-time. This is what I want most of all in this game, even though I know I'm not going to get this because for most gamers today all those things I listed above are boring.
But then, don't replace it with those silly portals like in D:OS.
Blasphemy!
I don't know what they originally were, but they are 10lbs each now. Which is pretty heavy - but then I also hate the idea of spending something like 8 hour hunting and then 9 hours resting : P
I agree, though. I like the resting/traveling system. Perchance, has anyone ever played the Expedition: Vikings (or Expedition: Conquistador) games? They had a good resting system too. If done right, they have be rewarding.
I did buy the Expeditions:Vikings and played up to the first city and some quests in it, but quit since I didn't quite enjoy the game. I don't remember the resting system, but IIRC you assigned jobs as well, like guarding and reparations etc?
I don't want single maps where you spawn at the start and constantly have to make your way to the other side and through a loading screen or four before getting to your destination.
Unfinished quests or content, looking at you Mind Flayers and The Twisted Rune.
Having to re-identify items again and again, eg Arrows + 1 or Sword + 1. If your wizard does it once they should have the knowledge when they come across another.
I would personally dislike random loot and level scaling.
An overly open map is also something I don't really want..
I do not want that a chance to explore a characters personality (and their character development) is gated behind a romance, even though I fully admit that I really really want romance options in it..
I don't want an overly large companion cast (BG2 hat a good balance there) and I don't want that all companions get along. Also, no base where you send companions that don't fit in your party!
Who you chose to take with you should be a choice and not jsut a conisderation who is most useful for the next part..
On topic of companions: No cultural rebels please.. If you give us an illithid follower let him stay eviil and just disagree with the goal or method, no need to have a good rebel..
Another thing: If you add evil characters or routes, don't make them jerks. Evil does not need to be rude and unfriendly to show that they are the bad guys. You can be cordial and still sacrifice elves!
And my personaly pet peeve: No good dragons. Seriously, I dislike dragons already, but good ones tick me off even more.. x_x
Yeah - very similar to PF:KM.
Do not want: One companion for every class. Leave some classes unfilles by companions, so the player can have a more unique role.
Optimized companion stats. I don't need every companion to be min-maxed. Reasonably balanced stat distributions please. No overly bad ones (Tiax) and no overly great ones (Edwin).
+5 anything. 5e only goes to +3 weapons and armor, so let's stick with that.
Definitely agree. Plus, given that they're following 5e, for interactions with folks that populate the game world I think it will probably mimic tabletop, i.e., ability checks, use of Persuasion and Deception, etc.
If WotC decide to fully make that canon and not jsut have Abdel as a placeholder for the module and keep the identity of the hero of Baldurs Gate vague in other publications.
Oh, there is another bit: If the comics are canon than Minsc traveled with Neera some time.
I mostly agree, but no good dragons? Good dragons are as much a thing as evil dragons in Dungeons & DRAGONS. And an evil silver dragon would be yet another, as you say it, "cultural rebel".
He also seems to be canonically a human, a fighter, of neutral alignment, and he somehow keeps the Bhaalspawn essence without becoming a god.
Now the first ones can be relatively freely interpreted as being placeholder stuff, but the last one directly conflicts with the game canon.
Yeah if anything there MUST be good dragons, dragons I can talk to, befriend, get quests/unique items, maybe even become allies.
Was that sarcasm? I can't tell. Anyhow, I never said dragons should be friendly, sympathetic, or even in the game. Just that good dragons are canon. On that note, they sometimes hide in big cities among humanoids on purpose. I could imagine a questline where you meet a person, get a couple quests from them to stabilize the city, only to find extremely subtle hints that they might be a dragon in disguise, never breaking it. Again, not saying they should, but canonically they could, and to my knowledge it hasn't been done in a crpg.
Well, I know that there are good(ish) dragons in D&D lore, but that doesn't mean I like that part..
But yeah, that is mostly my deep aversion towards dragons (and my personal expectations when it comes to these winged nuiscances).
..Yeah I forgot about the Human male part..
But I honestly never thought Charname last all of his bhaal essence... I think I need to replay ToB sometimes, maybe I just missed & forgot that part.. Especially since it seems everyone else seems to think so.
I always thought the Bhaals essence was integral to their live and thus it is not possible to resurrect Bhaalspawns (aside from Imoen, but that is because she is too awesome for Bhaal ofc).
Because without the essence the body can not live.
Mhm, that essence part kinda damages my perception on how being a Bhaalspawn worked, I need to recheck a bunch of things and if I overlooked that part I need to rebuild my understanding of the lore.. x_x
Not at all. I find dragons to be awesome, and games not allowing you to do anything other than kill them has long been a source of irritation for me. In the FR novels characters interact with dragons quite often, and there are even instances of chromatic dragons willing to work with humanoids over some common interest.
Ehhh, I'd disagree about the devil with a celestial bloodline part. It's more likely that the Red Dragon ancestor simply enjoyed raping humanoid females as a means of displaying his absolute power over his captives/subjects. Regardless though, I agree with you in that sorcerer bloodlines should be more varied in their choices. Aside from dragons, descendants of outsiders, fey, or elementals (such as genies) are equally valid origins for a sorcerer's powers.
But in order to do that, the red dragon in question needs to be in human form. I don't think that an red dragon would wanna do that... Anyway, having such type of bloodline should impact the character background and "story". On Manga Bastard, Kall Su had an human mother and cold dragon father and it affected him in a very significant way. Details of his story without impacting much the narrative in spoilers
https://bastard.fandom.com/wiki/Kall-Su#Anime
Yes! While I love killing dragons for their awesome loot I don't want a rainbow check card of coloured dragons to kill. In BG2 you must have crippled the Dragon population for centuries to come.
Deekin?
That's actually NOT required, despite what people might think. According to rulebooks, it simply states that "due to a dragon's magical nature, they are able to interbreed with many other creatures". (Similarly, it's how other outsiders or deities can impregnate mortal creatures while in their normal forms. The drow ritual coupling that produces the creatures known as draegloths is one such example.) So a dragon could simply reduce its size instead via various spells for the act (that is, if it actually intended the victim to survive. I wouldn't put it past a particularly cruel chromatic dragon to simply rape his victims to death.)
But again, yes, if bloodlines or similar origins are going to get included, I'd hope that they are varied enough to allow for a wide choice for players, but ALSO interwoven enough with the story to make them meaningful. One thing I absolutely LOVED in Dragon Age: Origins was how your choice of origin could DRASTICALLY change key points in the story. For instance, if you never tried out the Dwarf Noble origin, you probably didn't see much difference between supporting Bhelen or Harrowmont to be the next King, but if you were a Dwarf Noble... Hehe, you probably had a MUCH more personal stake in not seeing Bhelen win (even if it turns out that Bhelen would prove a much better choice for the future of the dwarven race).
ED: Disregard this, you were talking about other game.
At least you only need to have a draconic ancestor. I remember that in 3.5e, back in the day you actually were a disciple of a Dragon, you train with it and (If I remember correctly) you made your own egg dragon, put yourself in and when you hach you awake as a red dragon/silver dragon disciple. Way fair in Pathfinder XD
The exact same stuff that was in bg, 1, 2, and throne of bhaal. Quite honestly, I won't even bother to play it if it's stIll following the same mechanic second edition rules. Call me whatever name you want but if I wanted to play the exact same game again I'd replay the trilogy. I careless about staying true to the original trilogy than I do in actually seeing an attempt at innovating the game something a lot of fans I've notice, hate.
I prefer to see it branch off and grow into it's own entity than see it be constrained.