@Lemernis I'm a BG fan first, and a D&D fan a distant second. When the latter is going out of its way to bury the events of the former, it does not sit well with me. That's why I advocate so hard for not giving priority to the P&P lore when making a "sequel" to a video game series. They both did different things with the lore. Let them exist separately.
On another note, I liked some of the changes for 3e. Kelemvor was interesting and seeing how he started vs. what AO enforced on him informs a lot of how the gods operate in Faerun. By resetting all the way to a pseudo 2e, with Bhaal and possibly the rest of the Dead Three back (sigh) what does that mean for Kelemvor? He was one of my favorite deities.
I thought you were referring to something else. A lot of fans of FR lost their minds over the Spellplague and Second Sundering in 4e which decimated the Faerun we came to love in the first 3 editions. There was so much outcry over it that WotC did in effect retcon with 5e, restoring it in many ways to 2e. Or so I am told via articles and videos on the subject. I haven’t bought a FRCS since 3rd edition.
I am still playing (when we can) 3.5 or pathfinder, but in our case, we are lazybones that do not really like to learn new (and weird) rules in a world that does not feel the same.
We even played MiBG in a homemade 3.5 conversion, that was a hell of a homebrew.
@Lemernis I'm a BG fan first, and a D&D fan a distant second. When the latter is going out of its way to bury the events of the former, it does not sit well with me. That's why I advocate so hard for not giving priority to the P&P lore when making a "sequel" to a video game series. They both did different things with the lore. Let them exist separately.
Yeah, I'm pretty much the same actually. I don't have time to play PnP anyway. Although my own personal feelings aside, business-wise I do get WotC's motivations to push tabletop products through a (hopefully) popular and highly successful (at least highly anticipated) video game. As Mike Mearles has said, they want for BG3 to capture the essence of a tabletop game, or to capture many of the core elements of that experience. I'm going to assume that was one of the conditions they made in order for Larian to partner with them. LIke they want to use the game to try to gateway new generations in to having a go at tabletop gaming.
@Lemernis I'm a BG fan first, and a D&D fan a distant second. When the latter is going out of its way to bury the events of the former, it does not sit well with me. That's why I advocate so hard for not giving priority to the P&P lore when making a "sequel" to a video game series. They both did different things with the lore. Let them exist separately.
On another note, I liked some of the changes for 3e. Kelemvor was interesting and seeing how he started vs. what AO enforced on him informs a lot of how the gods operate in Faerun. By resetting all the way to a pseudo 2e, with Bhaal and possibly the rest of the Dead Three back (sigh) what does that mean for Kelemvor? He was one of my favorite deities.
it's like me with marvel. i'm more a fan of the movies and animated shows then the comics.
@Lemernis I'm a BG fan first, and a D&D fan a distant second. When the latter is going out of its way to bury the events of the former, it does not sit well with me. That's why I advocate so hard for not giving priority to the P&P lore when making a "sequel" to a video game series. They both did different things with the lore. Let them exist separately.
Yeah, I'm pretty much the same actually. I don't have time to play PnP anyway. Although my own personal feelings aside, business-wise I do get WotC's motivations to push tabletop products through a (hopefully) popular and highly successful (at least highly anticipated) video game. As Mike Merle's has said, they want for BG3 to capture the essence of a tabletop game, or to capture many of the core elements of that experience. I'm going to assume that was one of the conditions they made in order for Larian to partner with them. LIke they want to use the game to try to gateway new generations in to having a go at tabletop gaming.
I think you have a point here. Not only they are taking back a lot of the old gang from previous versions. And I think it is more because there are videogames of 2e and 3e but there is not 4e or 5e.
I do not know much about the new Eberron setting that came this month (Psionics returned and a new feature of group background called Group Patron) or the supplement books that came this year ( after a brief time we are playing 3.5) but It is clear that WoTC wants to go back to the roots, but not only to retake old fans. I think they want to lure fans of the videogames as hard as fans of the old versions.
They made the rules more accessible to people that start now playing D&D, 5e started simple, like the D&D essentials, the simplified version they made 2 years after the launch of 4e due to negative feedback.
They also left lots of room for roleplaying and allow hidden prizes to the ones that do RP right ( inspiration points that give the DM). They also made some nudges to the YouTubers and players that show online campaigns (You know, Critical role and all of the others, most of them non-professionals).
This month came Pathfinder 2.0. The player´s book is 640 pages. The Core D&D 5e PH is half of it. And you have D&D beyond (Free and open to all O.O )to make some fast searches online.
That's one thing I always thought about the release of 4E. From what I saw of the rules, it seemed to me that they were trying to adapt/modernize the rules to make it easier to translate into a video game setting. Now, on its own this isn't necessarily a bad thing; even though I mostly played 2nd Ed growing up, I wholeheartedly agree that dumping THAC0 for a straight Base Attack Bonus in 3rd Ed was one of the best changes they made. However, 4E oversimplified things too much in a way that resulted in the game losing a lot of its unique "flavour". It felt a bit like, say, if you came from Starcraft and went back to play Warcraft 2, where both races were basically carbon copies of each other, despite having different units.
Anyway, I digress. The point I wanted to make was that, despite adjusting the rules to make D&D more accessible to the "video game generation", I was quite surprised that they didn't really put out a lot of 4E video games. I'm not sure if WotC has endorsed any 5E games to date, but I'm hoping that BG3 will be a return to the roots of awesome D&D CRPGs.
4E was a blatant attempt to make P&P look like a videogame. All classes were equivalent in power and abilities they basically changed the names of abilities between classes. It just didn't work at all as a good P&P experience. My group disbanded shortly after 4E was released but we just converted the campaign we were playing back to 3.5E because nobody liked the experience of 4E.
That's one thing I always thought about the release of 4E. From what I saw of the rules, it seemed to me that they were trying to adapt/modernize the rules to make it easier to translate<...>4E oversimplified things too much in a way that resulted in the game losing a lot of its unique "flavour".
Anyway, I digress. The point I wanted to make was that, despite adjusting the rules to make D&D more accessible to the "video game generation",
And that is my fear when i see Larian saying that things that worked since Golden box games "doesn't work in video games", modern game deisng su****. A lot of BS mechanics like cooldowns, armor determining your character attribute instead of working like armor(aka offering protection), combat where you never miss but needs to hit enemy 40 times in the head with an halberd, spells that are just flashes in different collors, etc.
5E is already very easy to grasp. No need to simplify.
IMO 3.5e is better. Not only due new AC mechanics instead of THAC0, but due saves and DC. On 2e, an death spell require the same save, doesn't matter if was casted by the god of Death itself or by an weak low level wizard with an scroll. 3.5e made saves works in a better way.
An overly comical talkative halfing or gnome. Give us a mean badass one or serious type. Feel like the lighthearted small folk comic relief is played to death.
Focus on romances. Maybe an unpopular opinion and it was unique in Baldurs Gate 2 but I've kinda gone off romance choices. Personal quests sure! But in depth romances have started to feel a bit weak since Dragon Age and Mass Effect ran them into the dirt.
RNG loot. Unique gear please not some random blue name breastplate with a bunch of percentages of stat changes.
I kinda don't want every single line of dialogue voice acted. It works well in Baldur's Gate with some opening lines voiced then leading into lots more dialogue that might be cut or simplified if it needs tons of voice acting especially for regular townsfolk and stuff.
Actually yea I would also say MMO like crafting stuff. Dragon Age Inquisition tried to do some kind of MMO lite crafting system and it sucked. Please do not do that.
Oops. Read the OP. Comical small folk probably still applies and Romances from BG2.
Other than that? Hmm. Maybe lack of specific weapons like making Spear proficiency a bit usless. Making all weapon types pretty viable. Also resting only healing how many hours you slepts. Just make rest fully heal always.
How cool would a Halfling or Gnome based on comic Brad William's (he is funny as heck, find him on YouTube, I laughed so hard I almost vomited).
Comments
On another note, I liked some of the changes for 3e. Kelemvor was interesting and seeing how he started vs. what AO enforced on him informs a lot of how the gods operate in Faerun. By resetting all the way to a pseudo 2e, with Bhaal and possibly the rest of the Dead Three back (sigh) what does that mean for Kelemvor? He was one of my favorite deities.
I am still playing (when we can) 3.5 or pathfinder, but in our case, we are lazybones that do not really like to learn new (and weird) rules in a world that does not feel the same.
We even played MiBG in a homemade 3.5 conversion, that was a hell of a homebrew.
Yeah, I'm pretty much the same actually. I don't have time to play PnP anyway. Although my own personal feelings aside, business-wise I do get WotC's motivations to push tabletop products through a (hopefully) popular and highly successful (at least highly anticipated) video game. As Mike Mearles has said, they want for BG3 to capture the essence of a tabletop game, or to capture many of the core elements of that experience. I'm going to assume that was one of the conditions they made in order for Larian to partner with them. LIke they want to use the game to try to gateway new generations in to having a go at tabletop gaming.
it's like me with marvel. i'm more a fan of the movies and animated shows then the comics.
I think you have a point here. Not only they are taking back a lot of the old gang from previous versions. And I think it is more because there are videogames of 2e and 3e but there is not 4e or 5e.
I do not know much about the new Eberron setting that came this month (Psionics returned and a new feature of group background called Group Patron) or the supplement books that came this year ( after a brief time we are playing 3.5) but It is clear that WoTC wants to go back to the roots, but not only to retake old fans. I think they want to lure fans of the videogames as hard as fans of the old versions.
They made the rules more accessible to people that start now playing D&D, 5e started simple, like the D&D essentials, the simplified version they made 2 years after the launch of 4e due to negative feedback.
They also left lots of room for roleplaying and allow hidden prizes to the ones that do RP right ( inspiration points that give the DM). They also made some nudges to the YouTubers and players that show online campaigns (You know, Critical role and all of the others, most of them non-professionals).
This month came Pathfinder 2.0. The player´s book is 640 pages. The Core D&D 5e PH is half of it. And you have D&D beyond (Free and open to all O.O )to make some fast searches online.
Anyway, I digress. The point I wanted to make was that, despite adjusting the rules to make D&D more accessible to the "video game generation", I was quite surprised that they didn't really put out a lot of 4E video games. I'm not sure if WotC has endorsed any 5E games to date, but I'm hoping that BG3 will be a return to the roots of awesome D&D CRPGs.
And that is my fear when i see Larian saying that things that worked since Golden box games "doesn't work in video games", modern game deisng su****. A lot of BS mechanics like cooldowns, armor determining your character attribute instead of working like armor(aka offering protection), combat where you never miss but needs to hit enemy 40 times in the head with an halberd, spells that are just flashes in different collors, etc.
5E is already very easy to grasp. No need to simplify.
IMO 3.5e is better. Not only due new AC mechanics instead of THAC0, but due saves and DC. On 2e, an death spell require the same save, doesn't matter if was casted by the god of Death itself or by an weak low level wizard with an scroll. 3.5e made saves works in a better way.
How cool would a Halfling or Gnome based on comic Brad William's (he is funny as heck, find him on YouTube, I laughed so hard I almost vomited).