Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. Sign in or register to get started.

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!

Baldur's Gate "3.75"

2

Comments

  • PsicoVicPsicoVic Member Posts: 855
    edited June 2020
    Maybe Pathfinder started like that, but they outgrow it a lot, with more classes, refined rulesets and an entirely new world and lore. Now there is PF2e, that is very different, besides the fact that they use a d20 dice for skill, saves and attack rolls. I found the 2e very fun and compelling.
    DinoDin wrote: »
    I really don't get what the debate is here. D&D is the rule system. Forgotten Realms is a setting. It's really that simple.

    @kanisatha This ^

    Post edited by PsicoVic on
    scriver
  • BlackbɨrdBlackbɨrd Member Posts: 287
    I'd love Beamdog to make a game set in the same time as the Bhaalspawn saga, taking place just before Throne of Bhaal. Focusing on some other random Bhaalspapwn in a new location, and you're being hunted down by hunters. Maybe at the end of the game you get killed by one of the five (Illasera).

    I think there would be a lot of creative freedom in such a game, and it would be part of the Baldur's Gate saga, but nothing more than that. Just a fun alternative side story to the main attraction (BG1 & BG2).

    scriver
  • Flame_ExcessFlame_Excess Member Posts: 26
    edited June 2020
    Just EDITED the title to: BG3.75

    Scriver's post just made me remember that 3.5 already existed prior to 4e; and my reference was to Pathfinder instead of the reedition of the DnD3e (3.5). I was refering to the buzz for 3.5 that came after, which followed with 3.75 in this case. So my conception of the "next" Baldur's Gate is following that oldschool buzz that still exists with 3.75 now.

    It's funny we're now having a discussion about what is DnD and what is not. If I may suggest, how about discussing what is BG and what is not; I feel for the most part that's what I was trying to suggest we should be talking about instead. Although please feel free to continue your discussion as well.

    As for me, both the lore and the ruleset are important to keep the game authentic, but with WotC forcing both the lore and ruleset to a new time and edition in BG3, I feel like that is no longer Baldur's Gate. But clearly, it doesn't help that Larian Studios made the graphics (3d), gameplay (turn-based), and plot, entirely different as well.

    So maybe is it a combination of, say, 3 of these 5 major aspects that would determine a Baldur's Gate as being authentic, I don't know. What do you think? If you had to keep 3 of these 5, which would they be (edition, ruleset, graphics, gameplay, plot)?

    Post edited by Flame_Excess on
  • scriverscriver Member Posts: 2,072
    It's funny we're now having a discussion about what is DnD and what is not. If I may suggest, how about discussing what is BG and what is not; I feel for the most part that's what I was trying to suggest we should be talking about instead. Although please feel free to continue your discussion as well.

    Oh no, we're not going down this path of discussion again :P

    But in seruousness since it's your topic and you invite the discussion (prepare for stubborn arguments, they will come): For me the only there are two separate qualifiers for the BG name. First one, a relation to the Bhaalspawn Saga, the more direct/central to the plot the more qualifying. Secondly, being set in the titular city and/or the surrounding area of the Sword Coast.

    I'd prefer BG3 to have not been BG3 because I don't like the obvious marketing reasons for the title choice (and because really I am getting tired of modern big media only ever doing sequels or reproductions rather trying to establish new franchises and legacies) but I do not consider it not a BG game.

    I consider the ruleset to be a fundamental part of the BG1 and 2 experience but I can't hold it against them to want to move it to modern editions. By the time ToB was released they were drawing heavily on the newly releasdd 3.0 edition anyway, that's why they made brought in the new Sorcerer, Barbarian and Monk classes. We'd also seen this with Icewind Dale implementing an alternative to use the new 3.0 sneak attack rules instead of the 2.0 backstab rules. The editions move on and to me the marketing decision to have new games reflect the new editions is much more palatable than the "we're going to use the name that's the most famous because or name recognition" marketing decision.

    Graphics are a mixed bag. If we include perspective in this then yes I would like it to remain top down, but mainly because that is my favoured way of playing party based games, and I want a BG game to be a party based game. I don't mind leaving the 2D maps behind, however, even though the beautiful maps of BG2, ToB and ID will always have a special place in my heart.

  • ZaxaresZaxares Member Posts: 1,266
    I've never played Pathfinder, but basically, does Pathfinder still adhere to the Great Wheel Cosmology, with all of the structures of the Outer Planes, Inner Planes and the Prime Material? If one were to travel to the Nine Hells in Pathfinder, would we be able to see Tiamat, Asmodeus etc.? Could we visit Faerun, or Oerth or Eberron? If the answer is No, then I would venture to say that Pathfinder is not truly D&D (although naturally DMs at home could easily just adapt a D&D setting for the Pathfinder ruleset, just like how DMs in the past have adapted various D&D rulesets for Call of Cthulhu, Star Wars and d20 Modern). For me, the heart of D&D lies in the worlds and the characters and the lore that make up the stories players experience, not so much the ruleset or the edition.

    ThacoBell
  • PsicoVicPsicoVic Member Posts: 855
    edited June 2020
    Since there´s a 3.75 of sorts, maybe you have to change the thread again to BG 3.85 (Just kidding)
    Zaxares wrote: »
    I've never played Pathfinder, but basically, does Pathfinder still adhere to the Great Wheel Cosmology, with all of the structures of the Outer Planes, Inner Planes and the Prime Material? If one were to travel to the Nine Hells in Pathfinder, would we be able to see Tiamat, Asmodeus etc.? Could we visit Faerun, or Oerth or Eberron? If the answer is No, then I would venture to say that Pathfinder is not truly D&D (although naturally DMs at home could easily just adapt a D&D setting for the Pathfinder ruleset, just like how DMs in the past have adapted various D&D rulesets for Call of Cthulhu, Star Wars and d20 Modern). For me, the heart of D&D lies in the worlds and the characters and the lore that make up the stories players experience, not so much the ruleset or the edition.

    Pathfinder has his own world. There are no "planes", they are different planets and dimensions. It´s a very different setting with different gods and celestial powers, and they did it on purpose to differentiate themselves from D&D3.5. PF1e is called 3.75 (Paizo was never comfortable with that informal name) because it´s an evolution of the 3.5 ruleset, but the world of Golarion has little in common with Fâerun.
    Some races have similar names and looks but a different culture.
    The ruleset evolved and in the end, is not even recognizable in PF2e so that was more of a mocking name used at the beginning of PF1e but Paizo´s Pathfinder never wanted to be like WoTC´s D&D new editions, people just call it that.
    It´s like calling American football "Armored rugby" even knowing they´re different sports. The former has his origins in the latter, but after many years they became something else.


    If we want to talk about what defines BG, I´ll go with the lore and setting.
    But I have to point out that the world of Abeir-Toril had a lot of changes. They suffered two world-class catastrophic events like the Spellplague and The Sundering, that actually separated both words for some time. Many gods Fall, as the entire Mulholland pantheon others rise, like the eastern and Egyptian gods, some were resurrected like Amaunator. Some empires like Mulholland disappear and even some entire planes like dweomerheart were destroyed.
    Some races were extinct, some others rise from the ruins.

    So many things happen in D&D in these 20 years that I will find strange that a game will ignore all the changes in history and Lore in Abeir-Toril when making a new game.
    So what defines BG is the setting and the lore, yes, but the lore in Baldur´s gate 5e is very different from the one in the videogames even tho it´s still the City of Baldur´s gate, just many years later.



























    Post edited by PsicoVic on
    Kamigoroshi
  • kanisathakanisatha Member Posts: 1,308
    scriver wrote: »
    You really have no idea what you're talking about. Pathfinder is based on the open license d20 system (just as d20 Modern, Star Wars d20, and a hundred other systems). And no, they're not exactly alike. Pathfinder modifies and adds to many things from 3.5.

    But yes. It is basically a 3.5 mod. There's a reason Pathfinder is often called DnD 3.75. What makes Pathfinder different from DnD is not the setting (in fact I bet you'll find PF players just as often play games in DnD settings as they do in Golarion unless they're running official modules) but the rule changes between PF and 3.5. You know, the difference between classes and class progression, the new feats and abilities, the additions to the ruleset.

    The open gaming license that was released for 3.5 by the way, if anyone was wondering, is to 3.5 exactly what the open gaming license for 5th ed is to 5th ed. It's a license to use the DnD systems without any of the trademarks and copyrighted words or content. It's basically a way to generate free (as in free for WotC because it is produced by others) and most importantly continous content and buzz for your system. If you know what the DM's Guild is, well, all content on there is licensed under the open gaming license.

    Here's a good article on the origins of Pathfinder in the words of the founder: https://www.polygon.com/2016/8/1/12317888/the-story-of-pathfinder-dungeons-and-dragons-most-popular-offspring

    Here is a pretty in-depth explanation of Pathfinder, 3.5, and the open gaming license as they relate to each other: https://rpg.stackexchange.com/questions/133423/what-is-pathfinders-relationship-to-dd/133429#133429
    Huh? Funny. I went and looked at the WotC website's digital D&D games page, and guess what? P:Km is not listed there as a D&D game!! Neither are Realms Beyond or Solasta! All the other contemporary D&D games are listed there, but not any of these! You need to tell WotC to fix this oversight ASAP.

    Pathfinder is not D&D. You seem to have gone off the rails here with this silly stuff, so I'm not going to comment any further.

    ThacoBell
  • kanisathakanisatha Member Posts: 1,308
    PsicoVic wrote: »
    Maybe Pathfinder started like that, but they outgrow it a lot, with more classes, refined rulesets and an entirely new world and lore. Now there is PF2e, that is very different, besides the fact that they use a d20 dice for skill, saves and attack rolls. I found the 2e very fun and compelling.
    DinoDin wrote: »
    I really don't get what the debate is here. D&D is the rule system. Forgotten Realms is a setting. It's really that simple.

    @kanisatha This ^
    "D&D rules" and "D&D game" are two completely different and separate things. Something using D&D rules does NOT make it a D&D game. That is my whole point.

    ThacoBell
  • ThacoBellThacoBell Member Posts: 12,267
    edited June 2020
    @scriver "The open gaming license that was released for 3.5 by the way, if anyone was wondering, is to 3.5 exactly what the open gaming license for 5th ed is to 5th ed. It's a license to use the DnD systems without any of the trademarks and copyrighted words or content."

    Right, its NOT D&D. Its just the license for the mechanics.

    I mean seriously, would someone honestly claim that Final Fantasy 10 and Lord of the Rings: the 3rd Age are the same ip simply because they use the same combat system? Can't wait to see Gandalf fight Sin!

  • scriverscriver Member Posts: 2,072
    Neither Final Fantasy nor Lord of the Rings are names of game systems. Final Fantasy is a video game series and LotR is a book series. DnD is an rpg system.

    Adam_en_tium
  • PsicoVicPsicoVic Member Posts: 855
    edited June 2020
    I think we all agree that there are games that have the FR setting more or less well made (usually less) but do not follow the ruleset made by WOTC.

    Some use the word D&D as the widely known name of a tabletop game ruleset that could be applied to lots of settings (There are Star wars 5E and Witcher 5e) and Forgotten Realms, Eberron, Ravenloft, Greyhawk, etc as names of different settings.
    And others use the word D&D for the World, the lore and the settings of the classic D&D world of Faerun and the planes.
    It´s just a matter of semantics.

    scriverenergisedcamel
  • megamike15megamike15 Member Posts: 2,646
    scriver wrote: »
    Neither Final Fantasy nor Lord of the Rings are names of game systems. Final Fantasy is a video game series and LotR is a book series. DnD is an rpg system.

    ff10 and 3rd age have a similar combat system. thats what thacobell was getting at.

  • scriverscriver Member Posts: 2,072
    I know that. It's of no importance.

  • ThacoBellThacoBell Member Posts: 12,267
    scriver wrote: »
    I know that. It's of no importance.

    Yet you claim Pathfinder and D&D are the same entirely because of their systems. So either it IS of importance, or your entire argument was disingenuous from the start.

    kanisatha
  • scriverscriver Member Posts: 2,072
    edited June 2020
    I have never claimed they were the same. If you look at my posts you will find me saying the opposite. In fact, it is @kanisatha who is the one who up Pathfinder saying it and DnD are the same.

    I have stated that Pathfinder and DnD is a lot alike, because Pathfinder began as a modification of 3.5.

    But none of that is related to the reason that it is not relevant that FF10 and 3rd Age having similar combat systems. Like I said in my previous post. FF, FF10, LotR or LotR:3rd Age are not game systems. DnD is an RPG system. Comparing them is a false equivalence.

    As comparison, Monopoly: There are thousands of different Monopoly settings. Nearly every country has at least one, many cities have their own variants with their own street names. There are editions for every thinkable IP out there, Simpsons Monopoly, Disney World Monopoly, World of Warcraft Monopoly, I googled "weirdest Monopoly versions" and found Sun-Maid Monopoly, One Direction Monopoly, Bass Fishing Monopoly. These are all Monopoly games because they are all using the Monopoly equivalent of "game system". It's the same with Risk. And that's how it is with DnD -- If you're playing a game using the DnD rules you are playing a DnD game. It doesn't matter if it's set in FR or any other of the official settings, or in Golarion (Pathfinder's setting), Star Wars, Elder Scrolls, Harry Potter, LotR, the real world, or your own homemade setting. It's playing with the DnD game system that makes it a game of DnD.

  • kanisathakanisatha Member Posts: 1,308
    scriver wrote: »
    I have never claimed they were the same. If you look at my posts you will find me saying the opposite. In fact, it is @kanisatha who is the one who up Pathfinder saying it and DnD are the same.

    Seriously?! Post after post I'm the one who's been saying D&D and Pathfinder are NOT the same, while you've been saying they ARE the same. Is this some kind of joke or game for you?

    ThacoBell
  • scriverscriver Member Posts: 2,072
    edited June 2020
    kanisatha wrote: »
    But I guess by your logic Pathfinder is D&D. Try selling that to either Paizo or WotC. Pathfinder and D&D have exactly the same mechanics. What separates one from the other, and what provides uniqueness to each, and what is strictly copyrighted by each (as opposed to the mechanics which are only extremely loosely copyrighted and fully open to being changed by a game developer using them) is the lore of D&D versus Pathfinder. It's the D&D lore that WotC very strictly protects and preserves under its D&D copyrights, not the D&D mechanics which it gives away to anyone at no cost and with no restrictions on how they choose to use them.

    I'm referring to the bolded part.

  • kanisathakanisatha Member Posts: 1,308
    scriver wrote: »
    kanisatha wrote: »
    But I guess by your logic Pathfinder is D&D. Try selling that to either Paizo or WotC. Pathfinder and D&D have exactly the same mechanics. What separates one from the other, and what provides uniqueness to each, and what is strictly copyrighted by each (as opposed to the mechanics which are only extremely loosely copyrighted and fully open to being changed by a game developer using them) is the lore of D&D versus Pathfinder. It's the D&D lore that WotC very strictly protects and preserves under its D&D copyrights, not the D&D mechanics which it gives away to anyone at no cost and with no restrictions on how they choose to use them.

    I'm referring to the bolded part.
    Yes. What's not clear about that? The part you bolded is part of a longer post (so, context), and the entire post is about pointing out that though the two share the same mechanics, they are NOT the same thing.

    ThacoBell
  • scriverscriver Member Posts: 2,072
    The point is that that is the closest anyone has come to saying they are the same thing.

  • kanisathakanisatha Member Posts: 1,308
    scriver wrote: »
    The point is that that is the closest anyone has come to saying they are the same thing.

    You keep repeating this misrepresentation of me!! I was not saying they are the same thing. I was saying EXACTLY the OPPOSITE.

    ThacoBell
  • ThacoBellThacoBell Member Posts: 12,267
    scriver wrote: »
    The point is that that is the closest anyone has come to saying they are the same thing.

    You have spent multiple posts saying that game mechanics are all it takes for 2 rpg systems to be same. Going so far as to say that Solasta is a D&D game, even though the devs themselves have said its not. kanisatha has been arguing that it takes more than mechanics to make 2 different properties equivalent. Suddenly you're trying to say the opposite.

    What the actual crap are you trying to do?

    kanisatha
  • scriverscriver Member Posts: 2,072
    Pathfinder and DnD are not the same system. Pathfinder is built on DnD 3.5 It is often referred to as DnD 3.75. They are not identical. They are separate systems.

  • Flame_ExcessFlame_Excess Member Posts: 26
    edited June 2020
    scriver wrote: »
    Pathfinder and DnD are not the same system. Pathfinder is built on DnD 3.5 It is often referred to as DnD 3.75. They are not identical. They are separate systems.

    I think this whole conversation really depends on each player's feel at this point, because I really felt that 4e demonized some DnD players so much that they preferred to stick with what they had, and that evolved into a much more authentic DnD system that was Pathfinder for them. Therefore, Pathfinder's system is more DnD than DnD4e for them. I, for one, was favorable to adjust to 4e skills, but not the rest. I could also feel that the lore had changed with the dragonborn and tiefling races: a world commonly full of legendary and demonic creatures. It moved the genre from fantasy to fantastical; from deep and real to extravagant and fantastic; from LotR to Harry Potter. I know a lot of people who can switch between both universe without too much consideration, but not everyone can do so without any rebuke. Therefore, I believe this question of identicality is not so much about having the exact lore or exact system as much as it is about similar genre, mechanics, environment, and feel (and maybe also DM/content creator).

    When speaking of BG1/2 as opposed to BG3, that's exactly the same feeling I get: it's not DnD. It's even more disappointing as it really is, but my brain just can't seem to accept it due to the too many differences.

    DinoDinZaxares
  • DinoDinDinoDin Member Posts: 1,449
    I, for one, was favorable to adjust to 4e skills, but not the rest. I could also feel that the lore had changed with the dragonborn and tiefling races: a world commonly full of legendary and demonic creatures. It moved the genre from fantasy to fantastical; from deep and real to extravagant and fantastic; from LotR to Harry Potter.

    I definitely feel this critique. There seems to be a big problem with all these RPG's whether tabletop or CRPG with inflation. Every character has to have more and more skills and there needs to be more and more choices including seemingly powerful options for players. More and more "awesome buttons" and awesome options, to the point where these things are no longer awesome, but mundane. Especially since over-arching design concerns depend on some game balance. It moves these settings far away from what their original state was -- where things like magic are profoundly difficult to master for example.

    ThacoBellZaxares
  • PsicoVicPsicoVic Member Posts: 855
    edited June 2020
    Interesting, because my feels go in a similar direction. I have the impression that D&D became a very magic-centric system, magic is everywhere and it´s easy to achieve, overcoming everything.
    Its the "Harry Potter" fever: You wake up from your magic bed, use a magic toothbrush in my arcane shower, take my magic robes. I do not need my books because I have my entire library in my bag of holding and instead of walking, I take a teleport or use my magic flying broom to go to my magic class to make things I could do normally, but using magic, like summoning a cup of coffee.
    Sometimes there´s too much magic. I mean, you can use a normal spoon to eat, you do not need a psychically directed levitating spoon to eat your cereal.

    You have a lot of casting options, possibilities, different classes and spells, including utility, damage, support, etc... some of them so incredibly good that can substitute entire classes ( I mean, why do you want your ranger or rogue to explore if you have a diviner with +1000 spells at your disposal do that or a druid that could do better with wildshape and pass without a trace, or why using thieves tools if you have the knock spell and find traps? why seek shelter, food or water if you can create it at level 3? And now you have unlimited uses of your cantrips and ritual spells)
    That´s great and good if you want to play a caster, but when you´re used to playing one, the martial classes became uninteresting unless you choose one for RP purposes.

    You can say that there are classes focused on combat so I´ll have to expect less use outside combat but when a fight comes all the options are "attack!", "attack more!" or use my class features (that usually are passive buffs or simply allows me to add damage to my attack! or gives more attacks with no effect whatsoever). You are effective, of course, but all your options are "I attack" "I attack" and 2 very situational combat manoeuvres, something that makes the martial classes a little boring to play unless you´re a battle master IMHO.

    I hope Solasta and bg3 will come with some cool features to give the martial classes something to do (or at least a button to auto-attack he he)

  • scriverscriver Member Posts: 2,072
    Almost exactly my feelings. Especially about Dragonborn and Tieflings. I have ranted about them before on this site, I'm almost sure. I hold them in very low esteem. And Tieflings used to be one of my favourite player races back when they weren't Palette Swap Hellboy people.

  • BelgarathMTHBelgarathMTH Member Posts: 5,649
    edited June 2020
    DinoDin wrote: »
    I, for one, was favorable to adjust to 4e skills, but not the rest. I could also feel that the lore had changed with the dragonborn and tiefling races: a world commonly full of legendary and demonic creatures. It moved the genre from fantasy to fantastical; from deep and real to extravagant and fantastic; from LotR to Harry Potter.

    I definitely feel this critique. There seems to be a big problem with all these RPG's whether tabletop or CRPG with inflation. Every character has to have more and more skills and there needs to be more and more choices including seemingly powerful options for players. More and more "awesome buttons" and awesome options, to the point where these things are no longer awesome, but mundane. Especially since over-arching design concerns depend on some game balance. It moves these settings far away from what their original state was -- where things like magic are profoundly difficult to master for example.

    "When everyone's super, no one will be." ~ Buddy Pine, supervillain of "The Incredibles"

    RedRodentZaxaresPsicoVicThacoBell
  • ZaxaresZaxares Member Posts: 1,266
    Interesting. :) It would seem that despite our differences, we all agree that more recent iterations of D&D (and fantasy RPGs, in general) are going down the path of more "fantastical than fantasy" (awesome line, btw. I'm stealing that for future use), and becoming ever more divorced from more grounded fantasy settings. The Forgotten Realms has always been a high-magic setting, but I do agree with you guys. Having a street filled with draconics, fiend-blooded, spellcasters levitating etc. should be the province of settings like Planescape, not a more down-to-earth adventure on the Prime Material.

    PsicoVicscriverDinoDin
  • kanisathakanisatha Member Posts: 1,308
    edited June 2020
    Zaxares wrote: »
    Interesting. :) It would seem that despite our differences, we all agree that more recent iterations of D&D (and fantasy RPGs, in general) are going down the path of more "fantastical than fantasy" (awesome line, btw. I'm stealing that for future use), and becoming ever more divorced from more grounded fantasy settings. The Forgotten Realms has always been a high-magic setting, but I do agree with you guys. Having a street filled with draconics, fiend-blooded, spellcasters levitating etc. should be the province of settings like Planescape, not a more down-to-earth adventure on the Prime Material.

    Yes I completely agree. However, let's also not overlook that in 5e FR, arcane magic is now significantly less prevalent: far fewer mages, far fewer magic items, and even those items at much lower power, etc. In 5e, +1 items are uncommon, +2 are rare, and anything further extremely rare. All this because the Spellplague both decimated the numbers of mages as well as drained a whole lot of magic items, the most powerful items first and foremost.

    BallpointMan
  • Flame_ExcessFlame_Excess Member Posts: 26
    kanisatha wrote: »

    However, let's also not overlook that in 5e FR [...]

    Well, 5e was a greater dealbreaker than 4e was for me to entomb DnD due to mechanic and late-game class imbalance.

    Yet in the end, it's the fact that all major aspect of the game was changed by Larian that makes BG3 unlike BG. At least Beamdog has the merit of SoD being more widely included as part of BG, right?

Sign In or Register to comment.