Howdy, Stranger!

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

Categories

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

Do you want BG3 to use the new 5th edition rules?

123457»

Comments

  • Nic_MercyNic_Mercy Member Posts: 405

    @Nic_Mercy
    Some newer editions aren't backwards-compatible because they were fixing things that annoy the everloving crap out of non-diehard fans. Personally, after having feats in 3.5 and healing surges in 4, it's really difficult to go back. I still play Pathfinder, but having to ask for heals between fights is grating.

    I'm not sure I believe that's the case. I could see feats and other systems from later editions working in 2E without requiring reprinting all the same books in new formats.

    But ultimately the point for me (and of course this is purely subjective on my part) is that while 3rd edition didnt stray so far as to be unrecognizable, no matter how good or bad 4th or 5th edition are... they aren't D&D. At least they aren't D&D to me. They are completely different games in my eyes. How good or bad they are is not relevant to me. They just aren't D&D anymore. They may use similar terms and settings but they just aren't the same game.

    Brude
  • SchneidendSchneidend Member Posts: 3,190
    Nic_Mercy said:



    I'm not sure I believe that's the case. I could see feats and other systems from later editions working in 2E without requiring reprinting all the same books in new formats.

    But ultimately the point for me (and of course this is purely subjective on my part) is that while 3rd edition didnt stray so far as to be unrecognizable, no matter how good or bad 4th or 5th edition are... they aren't D&D. At least they aren't D&D to me. They are completely different games in my eyes. How good or bad they are is not relevant to me. They just aren't D&D anymore. They may use similar terms and settings but they just aren't the same game.

    That's fair, I suppose. Seems like the same game to me, only improved in every way.

  • syllogsyllog Member Posts: 158
    edited December 2013
    Amera said:

    Someone really got to the heart of the matter earlier: 4e was actually way ahead of its time, and that was its biggest problem. People always complain that "the sequel is just the same thing," but often times all they really want is the same thing with a few cleanups and changes. 4e was a far more radical change to the system than 2e-3e, and it probably would have fared much better if it had been called something besides D&D.

    There were certainly some good ideas in v4 (*), but what turned me off and I think many others was that it was unapologetically a GAME. It was balanced to the point of being aseptic. Rules for players and enemies were different. There were, literally, 1hp "mooks" in all encounters to give players something to feel powerful killing...

    v2 & v3 felt much more like SIMULATIONS. They weren't perfectly balanced; they were more realistically balanced (people with the ability to manipulate reality become powerful). Enemies were made with the same rules as the players - they were just players played by someone else. It felt more like a world and less like a game (like a shallow MMO). Even removing the complicated spell mechanics made it feel lean in a ... sickly kind of way.

    GAME vs SIMULATION - neither is good or bad per se (nor exclusive, obviously), but people who played D&D generally wanted more of the latter and they got that largely taken from them. It was an attempt to expand the market that backfired.



    (*)...though I'm honestly having trouble thinking of many besides obvious things like at will cantrips and more combat options for fighters... Oh. Some powers that refresh on the scale of minutes to hours instead of day - that was nice -- though it didn't make any sense for non-spellcasters....

    nano
  • syllogsyllog Member Posts: 158

    I would love a game in anything but 4.0/5.0 personally. Biggest problem I have is that it would have to be pre-spellplague for me to have any interest in another D&D game whatsoever. 4th ed FR is just awful, and while wotc seems to have finally realized it, their solution is less than ideal IMO. They should just do a mulligan and pretend everything in 4.0 FR never happened, and write a new timeline for that period-that's what I do when I DM D&D.

    If they were to make another Forgotten Realms game set pre-spellplague and using one of the pre-4th edition rulesesets, I'd buy it in a heartbeat. But a game with 4th or 5th edition ruleset or setting? That's a lot of lost trust to make up for.

    Star Trek - esque reimagining:
    Something, something - time travel.
    Whoo. Glad all that stuff didn't happen.
    Oh look; same world, but creatively open to new interpretations. :)
    (Though I always hated the idea of there being a "god of magic" - the scientist in me want's magic to be something that deals with the fundamental laws of the universe, not some god's sense of design. They can totally keep Mystra dead as far as I'm concerned. :)

  • the_spyderthe_spyder Member Posts: 5,018
    Nic_Mercy said:

    I'm not sure I believe that's the case. I could see feats and other systems from later editions working in 2E without requiring reprinting all the same books in new formats.

    I will say this, there is a MOD out there somewhere that converts items in BG2 into 3E versions of same. I tried it out once myself and, after playing for about 3-4 hours, I promptly uninstalled and went back to Vanilla (ish). I did NOT enjoy how the items compared and it was a hodge-podge mish-mash and not very enjoyable "to me" (and yes, I gave it a good long try). This is totally subjective, and feel free to disagree if you have had a different experience.

    What I am saying is that 2E and 3E, although closer than other versions, are not necessarily that easily smashed together.

  • CaradocCaradoc Member Posts: 92
    edited December 2013
    I'm no expert by any means, but here it goes...

    In my opinion dnd 3 or 3.5 edition rules are ok, but I hate the fact how there are so few restrictions on multiclassing. Just look at the most popular builds for nwn 2 for example. They don't even make any sense on conceptual level. People just take what ever they want for pure powergaming reasons, like 1 level of monk to get few abilties, but thats not how classes are supposed to work! Man that kind of shit pisses me off. Sure there is the xp penalty etc, but even allowing that kind class shopping feels like cheese. I'm a powergamer myself to some extent, but i don't want to cheapen cool fantasy universe like that.

    You don't just decice one day to take monk training and then change it into something entirely different at the next day. Or how paladin class has been so trivialized that people just shop few levels of paladin to get decent saving throws and divine powers. Becoming a paladin should be life long commitment. A decision one shouldn't take lightly.

    Less severe racial restrictions are an improvement, but I do not like that one can mix up classes in so random fashion. And combining classes should make some sense from lore perspective.

    As for 4:th edition rules: I don't have much experience with these rules, but one thing i'll say though. I did not like one bit how they simplified (aka dumbed down) the aligment system, when the aligments were one of the most iconic features of d&d.


    BrudeLemernis
  • syllogsyllog Member Posts: 158

    Nic_Mercy said:

    What I am saying is that 2E and 3E, although closer than other versions, are not necessarily that easily smashed together.

    Did you play Icewind Dale II?
    That was essentially Baldur's Gate with 3rd edition rules.

    Personally I enjoyed it. It felt just like Baldur's Gate, but the rules were more intuitive and what felt like arbitrary limitations on races and class combinations were removed. Sadly IDII didn't have much in the way of feats or combat maneuvers (e.g. trip, sunder, etc.) - so fighter combat remained bland.

    I don't think v3/.5/.75 is the best system imaginable, but I feel like it has the feel of 2nd edition combined with a more sensible and flexible system of rules.

  • syllogsyllog Member Posts: 158
    edited December 2013
    Caradoc said:

    You don't just decice one day to take monk training and then change it into something entirely different at the next day.

    Why not? That's exactly what people do in real life - to great effect.
    We mix and match different skill sets to make something unique.

    (I train mixed martial arts and coach submission grappling - combining different skill sets and switching from one to another is absolutely a reasonable and normal thing to do. I'm also a scientist by occupation (that's like fighter-monk-mage or something if you try to translate it :D ). I think you have to allow that to have a believable world. On of the critiques of v3 I think is that it makes multi-classing spellcasters so ridiculously handicapping.

    The PROBLEM with what you described was just poor class design (anemic classes with all the powers at the beginning). Pathfinder helps solve that by enriching classes so that new features come in at almost all levels - you can mix and match, but you lose out as much as you win - so it's more about concept and not about exploitation. (e.g. Paladin: There's no reason a holy warrior can't study magic, but you lose out on http://paizo.com/prd/classes/paladin.html so you're nothing like a pure-class Paladin. [And you still have alignment restrictions, so you still have to play the part of the good warrior from a RP standpoint])

  • the_spyderthe_spyder Member Posts: 5,018
    edited December 2013
    syllog said:

    Did you play Icewind Dale II?
    That was essentially Baldur's Gate with 3rd edition rules.

    Personally I enjoyed it. It felt just like Baldur's Gate, but the rules were more intuitive and what felt like arbitrary limitations on races and class combinations were removed. Sadly IDII didn't have much in the way of feats or combat maneuvers (e.g. trip, sunder, etc.) - so fighter combat remained bland.

    I don't think v3/.5/.75 is the best system imaginable, but I feel like it has the feel of 2nd edition combined with a more sensible and flexible system of rules.

    I did play IWD2 and enjoyed it. I also enjoy 3E to an extent and have played NWN1-2 extensively. I don't believe that 3E (in all of it's forms) isn't a good system. Nor do I believe that 2E is without it's flaws. They both are good systems, just different....

    However, IWD2 wasn't combining 2E and 3E elements together. I guess what I am saying is (always assuming that the story line allowed for this, which it doesn't), if you could import your IWD1 character into IWD2, it would potentially be a lot harder to reconcile the differences between the two systems than was suggested. The stats and the way character multi-classing are handled are two BIG discrepancies (I don't say issues because that says one system is better than the other, which I don't necessarily think).


  • the_spyderthe_spyder Member Posts: 5,018
    syllog said:

    Caradoc said:

    You don't just decice one day to take monk training and then change it into something entirely different at the next day.

    Why not? That's exactly what people do in real life - to great effect.
    We mix and match different skill sets to make something unique.

    (I train mixed martial arts and coach submission grappling - combining different skill sets and switching from one to another is absolutely a reasonable and normal thing to do. I'm also a scientist by occupation (that's like fighter-monk-mage or something if you try to translate it :D ). I think you have to allow that to have a believable world. On of the critiques of v3 I think is that it makes multi-classing spellcasters so ridiculously handicapping.

    The PROBLEM with what you described was just poor class design (anemic classes with all the powers at the beginning). Pathfinder helps solve that by enriching classes so that new features come in at almost all levels - you can mix and match, but you lose out as much as you win - so it's more about concept and not about exploitation. (e.g. Paladin: There's no reason a holy warrior can't study magic, but you lose out on http://paizo.com/prd/classes/paladin.html so you're nothing like a pure-class Paladin. [And you still have alignment restrictions, so you still have to play the part of the good warrior from a RP standpoint])
    I think the complaint was aimed specifically at Paladins and monks. While I agree that real life people can change professions, I do not agree that should be the case with these specific classes (and throw cleric in there for grins). These are less professions as they are vocations, and as such require a lot of devotion and discipline in order to master. These are not the types of things you pick up "For a level or two" and then discard.

    And no, learning Martial Arts is not anything even remotely close to the devotion necessary to become a monk.

  • scriverscriver Member Posts: 2,069
    Paladins in 3.5 Ed is only allowed to multiclass in combinations allowed by their individual order or deity (For example, Paladins of Mystra are often allowed to multiclass with Wizard or Sorcerer). If a Paladin mulitclasses to a class not allowed by his order he cannot take more levels in Paladin.

    I'm not very familiar with Monks but from how I heard people talk about the class I've gotten the feeling it has similar restrictions.

  • wariisopwariisop Member Posts: 163
    I wonder if they will EVER give monks a master proficiency in quarterstaff, it never makes sense to me as 99% of monks in any world master the quarterstaff.

    jackjackLemernis
  • davendaven Member Posts: 112
Sign In or Register to comment.