I've played DND next for months and it's pretty much just 4e refreshed. I do NOT what to play that in PC game form i'll just play FF14 or WoW and spam press my hotkey abilities.
It's still MMO action abilities and clerics being ranged dps shooting beams of light out of their mace like it's a Phaser from Star Trek infinite cast and mmo style cooldown wizards, etc.
If anything use Pathfinder rules but still I want to play Baldurs Gate. If I wanted to play different rules I would play something that isn't Baldurs Gate. This is a PC game not a pnp campaign graphical toolset. 5e wouldn't even look the same at all. This is a 2e game engine, the 3e implementation was a hackjob as it is I can't imagine how idiotic 5e would work. This is why I want IWDEE first because if it's 4e or 5e I wont be playing it and waiting for a properly crafted tactical strategy CRPG game like Project Eternity. 4e and 5e are action rpg and/or minigame mechanics and would make for a poor strategy game. It would certainly have to be completely turn based if a strategy game since it's based entirely on abilities like a MMO rather than just attacks+abilities.
I've played DND next for months and it's pretty much just 4e refreshed. I do NOT what to play that in PC game form i'll just play FF14 or WoW and spam press my hotkey abilities.
It's still MMO action abilities and clerics being ranged dps shooting beams of light out of their mace like it's a Phaser from Star Trek infinite cast and mmo style cooldown wizards, etc.
Quite a lot of useless anti-4E buzzwords you're bandying about.
Allow me to correct a few painful misconceptions: 1. Clerics cast ranged spells from holy symbols in 4E, not their melee weapons. 2. There are no "cooldowns." Daily powers have been in the game since the beginning. What do you think the Vancian spellcasting or the Barbarian's Rage are? Per encounter abilities have been part of the game since at least 3.5. 3. Five people sitting around a table, rolling dice and speaking in funny accents, does not an MMO make.
1. Clerics cast ranged spells from holy symbols in 4E, not their melee weapons.
Because it's iconic? There's tons of art of cleric/priest characters holding aloft the symbol of their deity and obliterating a room of undead or driving back demons.
Keep in mind, Clerics don't require holy symbols to cast spells. Magical holy symbols just improve their chance to hit and their damage. There are also weapons that double as holy symbols, like Holy Avengers.
1. Clerics cast ranged spells from holy symbols in 4E, not their melee weapons.
Because it's iconic? There's tons of art of cleric/priest characters holding aloft the symbol of their deity and obliterating a room of undead or driving
"Deter" is quite different from "shooting laser beams"
Those of us brought up on first edition prefer our magic effects more in the style of Game of Thrones. Subtle.
I can appreciate the desire for subtlety, but you would need a new game world to achieve it. Faerun might like to pretend that magic is rare and subtle, but I've read a few Forgotten Realms books. It's just as over-the-top as anything else. Krynn seemed more subtle than Faerun. The world setting of the Chronicles of Prydain seemed far more subtle yet, or the Chronicles of Narnia.
The game we're discussing is a Faerun game, and Faerun has got plenty of magic, even mage nations and magocracies.
@Fardragon Right, like fireballs, lightning bolts, floating skulls that explode, summoning pillars of light and/or fire from the sky, swords that are on fire, swords that throw you into a psychotic rage, staves with charges that blast people apart when you smack them with it, calling on your god to turn you into the incredible hulk, transforming into a golem or a bear, covering an entire room in thick spider webs, making people mindless with fear, disintegrating people, turning them to stone, etc. Oh, and let's not forget that, to even accomplish most of those effects, you need to give praise to your gods or make deep and ominous intonations in Latin. Real subtle stuff.
D&D has had quite a few spells described as rays or beams, as well. Ray of Enfeeblement, Scorching Ray, Ruby Ray of Reversal, Ray of Frost, etc. How is a ray or beam not a "laser"?
The Wisdom-based ranged cleric type of build is affectionately referred to as a "laser Cleric," because its primary at-will, Lance of Faith, is described as a ray of light. I don't see how that's a problem. Being silly with it or playing it straight, or describing it as something else are all up to the player.
Anyone playing 5e? What is it more like? 2e? 3e? 4e?
The first few versions of the playtest were like a 2E with no thac0 combined with 4E's revelation of normalizing offensive spells and physical attack rolls into one roll vs. static defense mechanic. It lacked a lot of 4E's dynamic combat and character customization, though, so I lost interest quickly. I have no idea how it plays in the drastically altered new playtests.
I really liked the system of IWD2 the best out of the Infinity engine games, I'd like to try it with that, but if it happens it will probably be in 5th edition rules (which I am not interested in) and will almost certainly be some sort of 3d over-the-shoulder camera angle affair instead of a sprite-based isometric (I prefer the latter), and it will almost certainly be some sort of post-spellplague affair. (an era I am terribly uninterested in) If we are really unlucky, it might end up as some sort of lackluster MMO like Neverwinter Nights. I'm a glass-half-empty sort of person though, so I might be a tad bit pessimistic.
I'd really like to see more classes and races included. I loved having a wider array of races and classes to choose from in IWD2 and NWN2, and would have loved to have those features in Baldur's Gate. That being said I find that with a greater selection of choices such as those, generally the less time is spent writing content for each individual feature. I remember running around in NWN2 as a chaotic evil drow favored soul of Lolth, and it was hilariously immersion breaking how little any of those aspects of my character were brought up. (Deaghun must have some incredibly bad parenting skills to let that stuff fly)
This question is why I recommended making a whole new game with a whole new rule-set, instead of working with Wizards, since Wizards is horrid and would only allow the new games to be 5th Edition, just like what happened with Icewind Dale 2 when third edition was new, and why ToB was a rushed expansion instead of a full feature-length game.
This question is why I recommended making a whole new game with a whole new rule-set, instead of working with Wizards, since Wizards is horrid and would only allow the new games to be 5th Edition, just like what happened with Icewind Dale 2 when third edition was new, and why ToB was a rushed expansion instead of a full feature-length game.
This would probably be for the best. A game based on 4th edition might make a fine hack-and-slash strategy game (turn-based combat on a tiled map) but 5th edition is an unknown quantity. Either way, you'll be able to make the game you want if you make the rules from the ground up.
This question is why I recommended making a whole new game with a whole new rule-set, instead of working with Wizards, since Wizards is horrid and would only allow the new games to be 5th Edition, just like what happened with Icewind Dale 2 when third edition was new, and why ToB was a rushed expansion instead of a full feature-length game.
While I agree that this does have potential, The time and testing necessary to make/balance a completely new system would extend the development time considerably. And we run the risk of ending up with something equally as horrible (or worse) than any current system out there.
For my money, stick with 2E. That would be the least development time (leaving more for creative adventure making), cost the least amount of money and have the greatest connection with the original. Failing that, I think Pathfinder would probably be my second choice.
Quite a lot of useless anti-4E buzzwords you're bandying about.
Allow me to correct a few painful misconceptions: 1. Clerics cast ranged spells from holy symbols in 4E, not their melee weapons. 2. There are no "cooldowns." Daily powers have been in the game since the beginning. What do you think the Vancian spellcasting or the Barbarian's Rage are? Per encounter abilities have been part of the game since at least 3.5. 3. Five people sitting around a table, rolling dice and speaking in funny accents, does not an MMO make.
With the greatest respect.
1. Potato - Potaaaato. Regardless of if the 'Ray' comes out of the weapon or the holy symbol, are the spells appropriate to the class and function? I don't know because I haven't played 4E or Next. If they are, fine. If they are 'Phaser' beams as the other poster indicated, unlimited use and basically 'holy arrows' as Cleric's main attack form, then no thanks. I am not saying the Vancian spell casting system was perfect, merely that I prefer it to '3 uses per day/1 use per combat' type Powers.
2. True enough, 'Daily powers' have been around for a long time. However, I don't think it is appropriate to compare the spell casting system with 'Use once per day' like a rage ability or something. They are separate and distinct. Most classes in 2E aren't exclusively built around a '3 use per day' single power. So long as 'Next' isn't analogous to 'Wizard levels up and picks one power and that power is 1 use per combat etc...', but there is more spell lists to choose from, and some veriability and strategic choices that would be the difference I would look for.
3. I don't remember ever having the 'Five people sitting around a table, rolling dice and speaking in funny accents' when I played Baldur's gate. Where did that happen? Or is BG an MMO? I think what the other poster was trying to get across was, if the powers/abilities systems are similar to what WoW and other MMO games have in place (and this is a significant departure from what we have in BG), a lot of people, myself included, would not want to play that type of game.
1. Like I said, 4E fans affectionately refer to a particular build as "laser Cleric," but how you describe the powers is up to you. The build's bread-and-butter damage dealing at-will power, Lance of Faith, is a ranged power that affects a single target, so it's easy to imagine it as a beam/ray of light. But, then again, it's called Lance of Faith, so it's not much of a stretch to think of it as a conjured spear of light or force, either. Never does the description mention lasers. But, yes, being an at-will power, you cannot "run out" of Lance of Faith. If that's not your bag, just don't pick that power. There are plenty of other options.
2. I think it's plenty appropriate. The Wizard has his spells, the greatest of which are too taxing to use too often, and the Fighter has special tactics the only rarely crystallize in a combat situation. In either case, each class can be equally dynamic and exciting because neither is forced to rely solely on auto-attack.
3. My point was that 4E and MMOs aren't similar, in any way. The comparisons between the gameplay of WoW or MMOs in general and 4E are the most asinine, incoherent thoughts I think I've ever heard. I'm really not sure where they come from, other than that complaints that the latest edition is more like a video game crop up EVERY SINGLE TIME a new edition is on the rise.
@Schneidend@the_spyder Just my two sense about what you two are talking about. I hate MMOs that are RPGs. They focus only on the multiplayer, and making a quick buck, NPCs are atrocious, and there is no storyline whatsoever. Any reject can go out and make an MMO that is supposedly supposed to be an RPG. Games like Baldur's Gate on the other hand, take work and actual thought, just like a tabletop game only in more detail unless your DM is just that awesome.
@GemHound I happen to like most MMOs I've played, particularly City of Heroes and Star Wars: The Old Republic. Now, if you want an MMO that rocks the story and characters, play Old Republic! I cannot stress how different it is, narratively, from every other MMORPG out there.
Still, that's neither here nor there. MMOs have nothing to do with this discussion, because no edition of D&D is in any way similar to standard MMORPG gameplay.
@Schneidend So, you are saying that Neverwinter Online has nothing to do with 4th edition D&D?
Neverwinter Online is inspired by 4E aesthetics and the Neverwinter Campaign Guide supplement for 4E when it comes to lore, yes. But, again, the gameplay is in no way similar. Having played the beta for Neverwinter, I can say it has very typical MMO gameplay like WoW or Everquest with a 4E skin. The game looks cool, and is rather fun to play, but it really isn't a D&D game when it comes to mechanics.
This is a purely theoretical discussion. BG3 will never be made, just the quality of the added content should be confirmation enough. It isn't terrible, but not very inspiring either. They are not old Bioware by a longshot.
This is a purely theoretical discussion. BG3 will never be made, just the quality of the added content should be confirmation enough. It isn't terrible, but not very inspiring either. They are not old Bioware by a longshot.
Never is a long time, and people can improve. I'd say Hasbro is more of a roadblock than Beamdog.
I personally don't have a problem with "That Power". I haven't played 4E so I don't know how it plays out. Nor do I care what the 'special effect' is as this is extremely subjective and based on your imagination and how it plays out in a PnP game. It could be anything. Certainly some spells in 2E could have any number of effects which may or may not be individual taste.
What concerns me is that the way the 'Power' structure is set up is such that such a thing would exist. Effectively you pick a power and that is your one trick for the level. In 2E (and 3E and 3.5E), Clerics and Wizards learned spells or prayed to gods to have a list of spells at their disposal. This, other than Sorcerers (which I personally am afraid is the direction things are going), was a variable list and could be changed out to suit the situation. If you were traveling north into the Spine of the world, you didn't memorize cone of cold spell as it probably wouldn't be as useful. You instead memorized fireball. If you ventured into the swamps, you made sure that you had a few neutralize poisons handy for all of the snakes and other poison creatures that you were destined to encounter. There was strategy in how you played your character that changed adventure to adventure.
What I suspect 4E is all about is "your character has this power that he can use X times a day. This power doesn't change until you level up and get a new Power" thus invalidating the entire plethora of spells that exist. There won't be any limited effectiveness spells that are neat to pull out, because if they aren't universal, no one would ever select them. Wizards don't adventure to find 'New and unique spells' because 'Spells' don't exist, only powers do. it basically makes the 'spell' system invalid and the whole concept of a wizard like Bigby or Melf studying a 'New spell' doesn't exist because wizards are now mutants rather than humans that learn greater secrets of the arcane. You aren't a wizard, you are Cyclops. That isn't why I play D&D (crpg)
As for point 2, see above.
For point 3, the Other poster was attempting to draw a contrast between the "Power" like structure of abilities in WoW versus the more diverse way things are done in BG and other D&D games. If you play WoW or Everquest and even DnD online, and compare the game play to BG, they are different. There are absolute synergies in the way MMOs all play out. Players like myself and others do not want those structures implemented in our D&D games. You may like them. We don't. We are merely expressing that we may not pay for something that goes that direction and being insulting to people who say that doesn't change the fact; nor does attempting to draw spurious or inappropriate analogies that have no relation to the differences.
Comments
I've played DND next for months and it's pretty much just 4e refreshed. I do NOT what to play that in PC game form i'll just play FF14 or WoW and spam press my hotkey abilities.
It's still MMO action abilities and clerics being ranged dps shooting beams of light out of their mace like it's a Phaser from Star Trek infinite cast and mmo style cooldown wizards, etc.
If anything use Pathfinder rules but still I want to play Baldurs Gate. If I wanted to play different rules I would play something that isn't Baldurs Gate. This is a PC game not a pnp campaign graphical toolset. 5e wouldn't even look the same at all. This is a 2e game engine, the 3e implementation was a hackjob as it is I can't imagine how idiotic 5e would work. This is why I want IWDEE first because if it's 4e or 5e I wont be playing it and waiting for a properly crafted tactical strategy CRPG game like Project Eternity. 4e and 5e are action rpg and/or minigame mechanics and would make for a poor strategy game. It would certainly have to be completely turn based if a strategy game since it's based entirely on abilities like a MMO rather than just attacks+abilities.
Allow me to correct a few painful misconceptions:
1. Clerics cast ranged spells from holy symbols in 4E, not their melee weapons.
2. There are no "cooldowns." Daily powers have been in the game since the beginning. What do you think the Vancian spellcasting or the Barbarian's Rage are? Per encounter abilities have been part of the game since at least 3.5.
3. Five people sitting around a table, rolling dice and speaking in funny accents, does not an MMO make.
Beams and Dogs 1st Edition (based on AD&D 2nd ed)
Keep in mind, Clerics don't require holy symbols to cast spells. Magical holy symbols just improve their chance to hit and their damage. There are also weapons that double as holy symbols, like Holy Avengers.
http://fc08.deviantart.net/fs70/i/2011/293/b/9/kyra_turn_undead_by_shiprock-d4dduuo.jpg
http://s.cghub.com/files/Image/603001-604000/603383/731_max.jpg
http://static.tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pub/images/turnundead01_4018.png
http://images3.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb20081001071705/forgottenrealms/images/e/ee/4e_cleric.jpg
http://ebid.s3.amazonaws.com/upload_big/5/9/1/1209071310-17238-0.jpg
http://hem.passagen.se/uffewald/druid/druid2_files/druid2_turn_undead.gif
Fantasy art aside, there's the image of holding up a holy symbol or relic to deter various nasty creatures like demons or vampires.
Those of us brought up on first edition prefer our magic effects more in the style of Game of Thrones. Subtle.
The game we're discussing is a Faerun game, and Faerun has got plenty of magic, even mage nations and magocracies.
Right, like fireballs, lightning bolts, floating skulls that explode, summoning pillars of light and/or fire from the sky, swords that are on fire, swords that throw you into a psychotic rage, staves with charges that blast people apart when you smack them with it, calling on your god to turn you into the incredible hulk, transforming into a golem or a bear, covering an entire room in thick spider webs, making people mindless with fear, disintegrating people, turning them to stone, etc. Oh, and let's not forget that, to even accomplish most of those effects, you need to give praise to your gods or make deep and ominous intonations in Latin. Real subtle stuff.
D&D has had quite a few spells described as rays or beams, as well. Ray of Enfeeblement, Scorching Ray, Ruby Ray of Reversal, Ray of Frost, etc. How is a ray or beam not a "laser"?
The Wisdom-based ranged cleric type of build is affectionately referred to as a "laser Cleric," because its primary at-will, Lance of Faith, is described as a ray of light. I don't see how that's a problem. Being silly with it or playing it straight, or describing it as something else are all up to the player.
What is it more like? 2e? 3e? 4e?
I'd really like to see more classes and races included. I loved having a wider array of races and classes to choose from in IWD2 and NWN2, and would have loved to have those features in Baldur's Gate. That being said I find that with a greater selection of choices such as those, generally the less time is spent writing content for each individual feature. I remember running around in NWN2 as a chaotic evil drow favored soul of Lolth, and it was hilariously immersion breaking how little any of those aspects of my character were brought up. (Deaghun must have some incredibly bad parenting skills to let that stuff fly)
For my money, stick with 2E. That would be the least development time (leaving more for creative adventure making), cost the least amount of money and have the greatest connection with the original. Failing that, I think Pathfinder would probably be my second choice.
With the greatest respect.
1. Potato - Potaaaato. Regardless of if the 'Ray' comes out of the weapon or the holy symbol, are the spells appropriate to the class and function? I don't know because I haven't played 4E or Next. If they are, fine. If they are 'Phaser' beams as the other poster indicated, unlimited use and basically 'holy arrows' as Cleric's main attack form, then no thanks. I am not saying the Vancian spell casting system was perfect, merely that I prefer it to '3 uses per day/1 use per combat' type Powers.
2. True enough, 'Daily powers' have been around for a long time. However, I don't think it is appropriate to compare the spell casting system with 'Use once per day' like a rage ability or something. They are separate and distinct. Most classes in 2E aren't exclusively built around a '3 use per day' single power. So long as 'Next' isn't analogous to 'Wizard levels up and picks one power and that power is 1 use per combat etc...', but there is more spell lists to choose from, and some veriability and strategic choices that would be the difference I would look for.
3. I don't remember ever having the 'Five people sitting around a table, rolling dice and speaking in funny accents' when I played Baldur's gate. Where did that happen? Or is BG an MMO? I think what the other poster was trying to get across was, if the powers/abilities systems are similar to what WoW and other MMO games have in place (and this is a significant departure from what we have in BG), a lot of people, myself included, would not want to play that type of game.
2. I think it's plenty appropriate. The Wizard has his spells, the greatest of which are too taxing to use too often, and the Fighter has special tactics the only rarely crystallize in a combat situation. In either case, each class can be equally dynamic and exciting because neither is forced to rely solely on auto-attack.
3. My point was that 4E and MMOs aren't similar, in any way. The comparisons between the gameplay of WoW or MMOs in general and 4E are the most asinine, incoherent thoughts I think I've ever heard. I'm really not sure where they come from, other than that complaints that the latest edition is more like a video game crop up EVERY SINGLE TIME a new edition is on the rise.
Just my two sense about what you two are talking about.
I hate MMOs that are RPGs. They focus only on the multiplayer, and making a quick buck, NPCs are atrocious, and there is no storyline whatsoever. Any reject can go out and make an MMO that is supposedly supposed to be an RPG.
Games like Baldur's Gate on the other hand, take work and actual thought, just like a tabletop game only in more detail unless your DM is just that awesome.
I happen to like most MMOs I've played, particularly City of Heroes and Star Wars: The Old Republic. Now, if you want an MMO that rocks the story and characters, play Old Republic! I cannot stress how different it is, narratively, from every other MMORPG out there.
Still, that's neither here nor there. MMOs have nothing to do with this discussion, because no edition of D&D is in any way similar to standard MMORPG gameplay.
So, you are saying that Neverwinter Online has nothing to do with 4th edition D&D?
What concerns me is that the way the 'Power' structure is set up is such that such a thing would exist. Effectively you pick a power and that is your one trick for the level. In 2E (and 3E and 3.5E), Clerics and Wizards learned spells or prayed to gods to have a list of spells at their disposal. This, other than Sorcerers (which I personally am afraid is the direction things are going), was a variable list and could be changed out to suit the situation. If you were traveling north into the Spine of the world, you didn't memorize cone of cold spell as it probably wouldn't be as useful. You instead memorized fireball. If you ventured into the swamps, you made sure that you had a few neutralize poisons handy for all of the snakes and other poison creatures that you were destined to encounter. There was strategy in how you played your character that changed adventure to adventure.
What I suspect 4E is all about is "your character has this power that he can use X times a day. This power doesn't change until you level up and get a new Power" thus invalidating the entire plethora of spells that exist. There won't be any limited effectiveness spells that are neat to pull out, because if they aren't universal, no one would ever select them. Wizards don't adventure to find 'New and unique spells' because 'Spells' don't exist, only powers do. it basically makes the 'spell' system invalid and the whole concept of a wizard like Bigby or Melf studying a 'New spell' doesn't exist because wizards are now mutants rather than humans that learn greater secrets of the arcane. You aren't a wizard, you are Cyclops. That isn't why I play D&D (crpg)
As for point 2, see above.
For point 3, the Other poster was attempting to draw a contrast between the "Power" like structure of abilities in WoW versus the more diverse way things are done in BG and other D&D games. If you play WoW or Everquest and even DnD online, and compare the game play to BG, they are different. There are absolute synergies in the way MMOs all play out. Players like myself and others do not want those structures implemented in our D&D games. You may like them. We don't. We are merely expressing that we may not pay for something that goes that direction and being insulting to people who say that doesn't change the fact; nor does attempting to draw spurious or inappropriate analogies that have no relation to the differences.