BGIII, what rules?

Remove all ads!

Okay, we have discussed, weapons, monsters, and storyline. Which rules should it play by? I think a combo of 1 and 2 should be the set of rules. NWN was based on D&D 3 rules and I was lost with alot of the spells and monsters and rules. But that is because when I played I played rules 1 and 2. But since BGI and II were based on earlier rules than BG III, I believe it should follow the same course.

 

It will be 3.5 rules, period. They need the D&D license for the game, and the D&D people will insist on it. Using a deprecated rule set draws sales and cross-promotion away from their current books out. They did, of course, create a new version for a reason after all. It's not gonna happen any other way. Sorry to disappoint.

 

Maybe they won't implement every spell there is, just like they didn't in their previous games. So you probably won't "get lost with alot of the spells and monsters and rules". And even if so there's always this forum

 

IMO, the more spells the merrier. I would be happy if BG3 had even more than BG2...

 

I think there are a lot of "wasted" spells that don't see any use at all in the BG and IWD games. I say go for quality rather than quantity (as the old adage goes). Not too concerned with whatever edition rules they decide to use as long as it's well balanced and doesn't take away from absorbing gameplay.

 

Some of those 'wasted' spells come into their own when playing solo or with a small party that is missing certain key skills but are useless in a complete party (e.g. some of the mage buffs are pointless when they can hide behind tanks).

This does not apply to "Infravision" though which I have always found to be useless.

 

I hope they make lighting and racial vision modes count. I know they won't as nobody has done that yet, but I still hope. 3:rd edition rules do take blindfighting into account afterall, and I think it would add much to the game when you had to consider the element of surprise in using that night / darkvisioned elf / dwarf instead of the torch-wielding human to sneak in.

 

Yeah, the more the spells the merrier. I don't particually care if there are substandard spells implemented - If there are I wont memorise them simple as that. Spells help to add depth to the game - It greatly helps set a great rpg (BG, IWD, Planescape etc.) from an awful one (Dungeon seige, Diablo etc.)

 

Although it would be good to include cases when each spell comes into use - I admit I seldom used more than 50% of the BG II spells, especially some divinations like farsight or oracle, for example.
Still, I prefered the rule system BG II used over the 3rd edition in NWN and its expansions. I really hope it will come back, at least in some tweaks. (sigh)

 

Well the thing about spells are not that you always need them all - beacuse you never do need them all. Why they're all there, is because if you need them - maybe only once - then you can use them. Even though many spells tend to sometimes be very confusing, a lot of them can make things easier in a time of need.

 

Maybe I'm just being pissy, but I hate 3rd edition, maybe it's because I loved 2nd edition so much, I played it since I was 10, and I look at 3rd edition and it seems like a bastardization of everything I enjoyed. You are now required to take what were optional skills, the rolls are confusing and if you have the bad luck to have a bad score in some ability you are penalized for it drastically... *sighs* Aside from that, I do not know if I will be buying Baldurs Gate 3, Black Isle is dead, Interplay is dead, I haven't bought an RPG since ToB... I just think that the 3rd edition rules have made too many things that were Optional, Mandatory.. A very bad move in my opinion.. Sure, you don't HAVE to do it, but that doesn't mean you won't be forced to by a DM.

Oh one last rant before I go.. THE ART, arg, the characters are so damn pretty in the 3rd edition book I feel ugly next to the half-orc. -_- I just don't think thats how it should be, all of the art in the second edition (and first edition) books was very nice looking, the people in the pictures looked good, but they looked Normal; and that there is the difference, the new pictures look so.. anime-ized.. that it is disturbing to me, I enjoy the realistic pictures in the second edition books, they were the 'classic' sort of fantasy art and were very well done... Alright, I'm going to stop ranting now, pardon me..

 

BG was such a good game I didn't like the fact that they changed it in BG II, but out of loyalty I gave it a try and eventually got used to it. I tried neverwinter nights and hated it. I think they should stick with what ppl know and love. If I see a demo of BG III and it's not very similar to BG 1 or 2, I don't think I'll get it. I feel like I totally wasted my money on Neverwinter nights. seeing I have never played it more than a day or two. If ppl like DIABLO they will buy DIABLO not BG3 so why not just simply stick with a good thing and not screw it up. If BG was soooo sucessful that they want to make a third version, why not stick with what they know makes the customers happy? Ahh I'm rambling now so I'll shut up.

 

"I think they should stick with what ppl know and love."

and then these same people will say:
"we got one of the same.. no inovation no new ideas.."

I think nwn was the best thing since sliced bread
and it gave a huge boost to rpging worldwide.
Of course there were flaws but i can't think of
one thing that has none.

Let's just wait and see how dragon age will be.
I'm confident that it will be a game to remember.

 

I think it'll be 3rd, with little changes. Because of computer

 

I've heard many people say that the best it could be is true 2nd, but personally, I hope they tweak a lot of stuff for the computer. Remember, p&p rules were made to make the game simple on p&p. There are a lot of things that are different on a computer and things that worked well on one may not on the other.
Example: Limited Wish (or Wish) in BG2 were both little more than gags and really not useful at all, but in p&p, they can be increadible spells because you can tell the DM what you want.
Example: On the computer you could easily make area spells like fireball and lightning bolt be more effective in the center and less on the edges. This would be realistic and add a new (though small) element to the game, but they'd never do that in p&p because it'd be too complicated, too many calculations.
Example: They could make many skills, especially weapons (I know they aren't skills, but bear with me) upgraded through uses per level or the like instead of with skill points on the computer, but again p&p would find this far too complicated.
I hope they make this a good, open-minded mixture. As for spells, the more the merrier and if you get lost, that's what pause and the manual are for.

 

Like has been said, it will be a 3.5e game, because nowadays, that is what the P&P audience knows (not necessarily loves, but knows; I've had several people tell me that they play 3.5e, because that's all they can find, but they like 2e).

 

Ah, but with a name like Baldur's Gate, the game audience isn't necessarily going to be familiar with D&D. When I played BG1, I had never played a p&p rpg in my life, had no clue what the rules were, and knew little more about it than the class archetypes. The same is true of everyone I know that has played andy BG. On top of that, from what I know, neither BG1 nor BG2 followed any particular set of rules too closely. I could be wrong on that last part, however the principal is true that people come to a computer game expecting to learn the system. With a series like BG this is less true, but still applicable.

 

yes

 

By the time BG3 comes out, if it does at all, 3.5 might not be the latest edition anymore. I don't foresee any 4E in close future, but who knows if they aren't going to come up with a 3.75 and mess around a bit with class stats. I would really, really love to get a 2E BG3 (not like I'm not going to give Icewind Gate a go, either), but as it's been said, it won't be.