What I'd like to see in Baldur's Gate 3.

Remove all ads!

Yes, Arianyr, but read the description of the proficiency, where it says that the determination is made at half the usual score. That's the rules as written.

 

i know, but that will still allow you to identify almost every item. you usually dont find +3 weapons, you know?

 

Depends on your level and DM. We didn't often, but he also didn't let us use a proficiency to replace a class feature (of bards, who get a 5% chance per level to know a little) or a 1st level spell costing 100gp per casting.

 

I realize that the opening comments were made ages ago though I think there's quite a flaw in the requests which tip the game towards a sort of sims/diablo/NWN game.

It's easier I suppose to build on what I disagree with then, which is nearly everything said.

"-Graphics that really, honestly take advantage of what computers can do today."

What's great about BG and BG2 is that they do *NOT* need a computer the price of a mercedes to run them. A good game such as BG does not need flashy graphics to make it worthy of play, on the contrary, making it look something like Dark Alliance would completely ruin the game.
What it does need is more detail.

"-More interesting NPC's ..."

I cannot see how the NPC's in BG can be found to be uninteresting. All have background stories and I personally found them very likeable.

"-It should be entirely in 2E rules, not 3E; 3E sucks.

-Characters should be able to run when you want, not just walk.
-They should also be able to swim, jump, climb, move stealthily...
-Characters should be able to do absolutely everything possible in an actual game of D&D..."

Notice that the opening statement rules out the continuation. 3e rules can bring a game to a much more interesting level with skills and so forth. 2e is far to limiting compared to 3e and a lot less realistic (from a logical point of view).
After playing IWD2 I realized that 3e is definetly the way to go.

"-There should be an utterly huge game world consisting of hundreds of different places/areas, some of them bigger than others (including some really huge ones) and no matter what, it should still all fit on ONE, and only one disc because one of the annoying parts of the first Baldur's Gate was that you often had to change discs when going into a new area which was quite annoying."

These comments utterly bewilder me. BG1 has to be by FAR the game with the LARGEST amount of playable area I've ever seen. The second part of this remark is truly maddening. You want the game to have more areas than BG1, be with much better graphics, and yet fit onto one cd? Come now! Who do you think you're fooling? You could have easily bought the DVD version of BG1 though.

"-There should be a vast number of creatures and monsters, all that are actually in D&D and any the writers or whatever can think up on the fly."

BG is a D&D game, not Diablo or Warcraft.

"-They should get a better guy than before to do the music..."

Maddening once again, the music is a flawless compilation fitting the game perfectly. The only improvement needed is to lengthen the tracks so that they don't loop too often.

"-As stated, there should be multiple endings..."

Just because it's possible on a PS, doesn't mean it should be done on a PC. Isn't BG3 meant to be a Prelude to BG1? How then could it have more than 1 ending?

"-Characters should have very detailed personalities..."

Exists in BG2..

"-Characters' alignments should actually be their reputation..."

Once again exists in BG2..
Decisions in Hell for instance.

"-All classes should have the same max/peak level."

Makes the classes different and interesting as you wanted? no. IWD2 showed us how well the 3e system works when calculating race class modifiers.

"-...start out at level one, and the peak/max ... over 20."

BG? Know it?

"-Characters should be able to ascend to EPIC level..."

With 2e rules? Get real.
With 3e rules though this is the real way to improve the game. There should be a wide rage of prestige classes and also options for a Mage to become a Lich, another to have Golem limbs attached by a fellow Mage, and so forth. The wider the range of 3e epic class options, the better.

-The game should take many hundreds of hours to beat....levels of difficulty"

Having different levels ruins a game. So does a long drawn out game.
BG1 mastered this problem. You can go only to the needed areas, or you can go to every area, taking about 10 times the playing time. What is needed is a wide range of SIDE QUESTS. The lack of them made IWD a boring game.

"-There should be many different races to play (several dozen), not just five or six."

IWD2? 3e?

"-Your character's character model should be highly customizable...not all male characters would look like the same guy"

This isn't sims...But there is a point to be made here. Perhaps you should have a roll on height and weight and in some way age.

"-There should be many more portraits to choose from.."

True for BG, not for IWD. Just bring over some of the guys who made those portraits and you're sorted.

"-You should be able to meet all the famous NPC's, including having ones like Drizzt Do'Ourden...However, their should be no Elminster because he's a blatant Gandalf-ripoff."

Oh so having Drizzt in your party is ok but Elminister can't be in the game? Elminister is Elminister and LOTR is something else. Does LOTR have to be the source of everything?

"-Every priest should be able to choose a particular god, which should be the sole determining factor for absolutely all of his spells."

This was done in IWD2...3e
But true maybe it should give completely different spells for each domain.

"-There should be many classes..."

Says the fan of 2e...

-You should be able to have a pet...

Familiar?

Please play the games before assuming they don't have certain things.
I fear that some of these changes proposed such as graphics may be changed...I personally would be devastated if BG3 looked like NWN. I say keep it like the original from the view point, improve detail and sound quality.
Then just expand into epic terms of 3e, adding more planar travel and planar encounters, epic prestige classes, epic spells, while keeping the entire range of levels at D&D 3e and not a 2-3e variant.

To sum up, this is BG3, not NWN2 or some other game, so it has to be kept as close as possible to the original from and interface and feel point of view, otherwise it just be another RPG game.

 

Three Cheers for Father Ted!

 

@Chump: ( )
Hip, hip ... *crickets chirping*

@fatherted:
Ease up a little. People are only saying what they want to be in BG3. They're not saying that these things had not been in other games. Some of these wishes are for things that weren't in the previous games, but most are for things they've seen implemented successfully, and want to see again. You can only play those other games 50 or so times before they become a little repetitive.

Now, that being said, I agree with your statement that it should look like Baldur's Gate, and not something else, and I whole-heartedly agree with your 'mercedes' crack. I think people just want more story, and want to see the best parts of all these various games put together to form a sort of "supergame". It may not be possible, but hey, we can dream, can't we?

 

I agree that BG3 should be like Baldur's Gate, but maybe improve on the graphics. I'm not saying that the graphics were horrible, but they seem dated now. It's just in my opinion, the paper dolls, and the real character in game play could look better. {By the way, what is with those horrible paper dolls from BG2?} It wouldn't be much work, just a little tweaking here and there to the characters. The magic effects could be better too. But what do I know? I've only played the series like 5 times, AND I'm only 13!
edit: It would be better if there were WAY more classes and races. I really enjoyed playing through IWD2 as an aasimar and a drow. The priests should be able to choose their god, and maybe the spells be completely different. I think it might be cool for rogues/thieves to be able to choose their 'style'. Like maybe Luskan thieving, or Shadow Thief, etc.

 

To father ted, a response.

(In reference to being able to do things like run, swim, sneak, climb, etc.)

Actually, Ted, all of these things were possible in 2e, as well. A non-thief could climb walls, someone without the proficiency could swim, etc. They were just more difficult, and less able than people who took the proficiency.

This is somewhat amusing to me, because I quickly read the statement at first, and translated the first clause as "Just because it was possible in Planescape...".

Yeah, Planescape had alternate endings. You could absorb TTO, kill yourself, fail in your quest, or what have you. I especially liked the ending where you became the Silent King, though it meant that you failed.

And your decisions in PS:T affected your alignment directly, even changing what was listed on your sheet.

I disagree. IWD2 is, in part, a flawed implementation of 3e... and even then, 3e is not the bees knees, as it were. It is very easy to powergame your character in IWD2... check out advice to players where its suggested that people take a couple levels of class X just to get the abilities, because those levels won't matter in the end. 2e multiclassing was flawed, I'll admit, because you wound up more powerful than a person of equal experience, but when you made a choice of a 2e multiclass, you had to take the good with the bad far more than you do with 3e.

Actually, BG2 did do the 2nd edition "Epic" levels. A lot of the special abilities from BG2 are direct from DMO: High Level Campaigns.

I disagree with you about Levels of difficulty ruining a game. However, I dislike how they implemented it in IWD1, where you could fight things on normal, memorize spells on Easy, and collect quest experience on Insane.

I will agree, however, with an unnecessarily long game. PoR:RoMD suffered from this, as did BG1, to an extent... to much pointlessly open space. At least BG1 tended to have a subquest or two per area.

I disagree. First of all, most of the side-quests (things not strictly necessary to beat the game) in IWD were placed directly in your path, making them seem less like side quests. However, I think that IWD's lack of non-plot sidequests helped to make it more focussed and move the story along, not boring.

Once again, however, this was present in 2e. Aasimar and tieflings both come from Planescape. All of the other races and subraces (except the Ghostwise Halflings) have been PCs since 1st edition's Unearthed Arcana. Even Ghostwise halfings were nominally present; they were called "Tallfellows", and they weren't silent and telepathic, but they were a third subrace of halfling. And 2nd edition had rules in the DMG for playing "monster" characters, as well as the Complete Book of Humanoids (and skills and powers), which provided more detail.

Personally, I would like to select my height and weight, rather than roll it, but that's just me.

Not quite. IWD2 changed a few spells based on your clerical allegiance. In 2nd edition, it was possible for two clerics/priests to have completely different spells based on their choice of patron deity... this one might have Animal, Plant, Healing, and Time, while this one would have Numbers, Law, Necromancy and All. The two priests would have very few spells in common. Whereas a cleric with the Fire and Air domains will have 95% of his spells identical to the one with the Earth and Water domains... the difference will be those two spells per level.

2nd edition did have a large number of classes. The only ones in the 3e PH which are not in the 2nd edition PH are Barbarians, Monks and Sorcerers... and there was a complete Barbarian's Handbook for 2e, as well as several different versions of the Monk. Of course, 2e also had kits, which made for an exponential increase in the number of "classes", as a kit usually made fundamental changes into the nature of your character's abilties.

Really, Fatherted, you're showing a shocking ignorance of 2e beyond what you can glean from the IE games. If you're going to bash 2nd edition, at least do it on its own merits, not what the game designers decided to implement.

 

As a response to the responder...
I was not bashing 2e. I'm not a fanatic fan of 3e...I was just pointing out that ruling out 3e is a mistake.
About the "Epic" stuff in BG2...it was quite annoying how lvl 40 was worthless and only meant a few whirlwinds (for a fighter for instance). The variant edition used in BG2 didn't work that well in that manner, I realize whirlwinds and so forth are epic feats, but they were far too easy to attain and replaced any other improvements for those levels.

Also I didn't say BG2 changed all cleric spells...If you look you'll see I said that it would be nice to have the domain change all of them.

All in all...I'm not saying anything against 2e...I'm not saying I know more than anyone else about D&D rules, all i'm saying is that it's silly to disregard the 3e rules because I find them very useful, and a lot more logical. After all, they were developed through feedback, and should fill in all the gaps in the 2e rules.

If you want to quote me again, add some positive input. I'm not bashing anything except what you think you just bashed...Ignorance towards a rule set.

 

But if the domain changes all of them, that's not 3e; that's a variant that's fairly at-odds with 3e.

As for your "I'm not saying anything against 2e, I just don't want 3e dismissed out of hand", that's more or less what you were doing... your point, in essence, seemed to be that all of these things were present in 3e, with the implicit corrolary that they were not present or inferior in 2nd edition. As you said, "2e is far to limiting compared to 3e and a lot less realistic (from a logical point of view)."

I've never found 2e limiting, except in the ways it was designed to be limiting (i.e. forcing you to make hard choices about abilities, since you couldn't pick everything up piecemeal). And, compared to 3e, I don't find it terribly unrealistic; 3e's linear progression of levels, where 14.333... encounters of a CR equal to your average level will raise a party of 4 by one level seems less realistic than 2e's slowing of experience as you gain in power, as it does become harder to reach new plateaus.

The ability to switch freely between classes, retconning study for simplicity's sake is egregious... I can be a fighter for 4 levels, and then decide to be a wizard (or decide my latent magical abilities as a sorcerer have woken up), with no reason more than "I want to", and 3e assumes that you've been studying for it. Of course, the party wizard required a 10 year apprenticeship to learn it, but you've picked it up by looking over his shoulder, in retrospect. As the Order of the Stick put it: http://www.giantitp.com/cgi-bin/GiantITP/ootscript?SK=126

The skill system in 3e, similarly, suffers from the inability of higher-level characters to fail, but also the consequential linking of skill in a craft to level, hit points, and fighting ability. If I want 10 ranks in a Craft Skill, I have to be 7th level. That means every Expert who makes masterwork weapons (which, incidentally, are also in 2e) is, for some reason, a better fighter than a 4th level Fighter... because he has to be, by the rules as written. In 2e, it was based foremost on natural ability, and a person who studied a specific proficiency would be better at it.

3e was, in some ways, an improvement. In others, it makes big mistakes in design and supports powergaming and min/maxing.

And, lastly, on the topic of positive feedback, I quote yourself: "It's easier I suppose to build on what I disagree with then, which is nearly everything said."

There was precious little positive to say about your post, so I didn't say it.

 

I didn't ask you to say something positive about what I said, I didn't even ask you to reply. I also didn't ask for a lecture on your view of the 3e system, and I'm hoping posting one reply on this forum every few months won't cause me this much trouble in the future. I just said I don't know more than anyone else. I was speaking about my personal experience with 3e, I was not imposing anything, and all I wanted to say was that I do not hate 2e. In fact I didn't like 3e in the beginning and as I said I'm not a fanatic fan of it now. To end up...in my first post I was NOT bashing any ruleset I was getting annoyed at some one who was.

Now please do not reply to this, I don't think a reply to it exists anyway so save the effort of looking for one.

Now after that I'll add some thoughts for BG3 since that is the topic...

1) I posted this once on the DLTC board. I think it's about time that at some point in the game you should reach a battle that you cannot beat. When I think of it the game imposes the idea that any 2 people fighting have won every single fight they've had so far in their lives. It's about time to see a different result in a battle.

2) A lot more planar travel. It's boring to be in the one place the whole time and it would give a wider range of encounters.

3?) I'm assuming again that BG3 is a prelude, so is it possible you'll actually be able to be a wide range of races? Including stuff like Illithid?

4) Alignment restricting your class, not the opposite. People don't usually decide they are something and then become the right alignment for it.

5) MORE SIDE QUESTS. IWD1 was a boring game because you seemed to be doing everything for no reason where as in BG you are drawn in. By side quests I mean freedom of movement, otherwise there's hardly room for replaying the game.

6) Bag size. I hope it's kept the same as BG1-2. IWD had too much room (because there were too many items) and NWN...I don't want to get started on.

7) Finally I think there are a few things from IWD2 which would have been nice in a BG game. For instance going back to the elven tower (forgotten the name already), rebuilt, was interesting. It would be good to see well known areas (Beregost, BG, Athkatla) as they were then (again assuming it's a prelude). The same goes for characters. It would be good to see (if possible considering the time frame) know NPCs' origins in BG3.

That's about it for now. There were a few things I brought up before like becoming a Lich, or making a Golem out of another fighter in the party.

 

"If you want to quote me again, add some positive input." "I didn't ask you to say something positive about what I said..."

Compare the two statements. Notice the logical inconsistency? By posting something to a public message board, FT, you're going to get a response.

Now, since I didn't have to look too hard for answers, to your points...

To point 1: I like the idea, but the fight should not be completely unbeatable; that's just frustrating. However, it would be interested to have a fight where dying did not end the game... you instead wind up as prisoners or something, and have to deal with that.

To point 2: I don't think Planar travel is strictly necessary to make the game interesting, but having thoroughly enjoyed Planescape, it can help. Travel, period, helps give games a bit more variety.

To Point 3: Why on Earth would it being a prelude allow you to play an Illithid? Heck, in the 3e rules, an Illithid, with no class levels, is equivalent to a 15th level character if used as a PC... that's rather obscene, unless there's a limited way you can meet this guy, restricting him to higher-level characters.

To Point 4: Disagree completely. First of all, I would disagree with "People don't usually decide to be something, then become the right alignment for it." Your class at 1st level, more often than not, represents what you were raised to be. A Paladin was raised to believe in Law and Goodness... he may have leaned that way as a child, but his training reinforced it. A monk was trained from birth to a strict discipline. If he wasn't capable of maintaining that strict discipline, he never became a monk.

The character generation system, as it stood in the 2e IE games, allowed people to play what they wanted, regardless of their ignorance of the system or whether they've read the book or not. At character creation, I would stick with choosing class, then an appropriate alignment. If your alignment fluctuates in the game, then that should have an effect, but having people choose an alignment and then a class is just annoying to newbies, who have to go through it a couple times.

5) I don't think you're looking for side-quests; you're looking for your character's involvement in the story. IWD had problems (I disagree that it was a boring game) because your characters showed up, went on a quest because it was there, and just sort of went along with it, without real reasons beyond "We're heroes, we should right this wrong." In BG, you were the center of the story, and that added a lot of immediacy... you were doing things because someone killed your foster father, and when you reached safety, you found someone trying to kill you, and that there had been a bounty put on your head.

Point 6) Not sure what you mean by this one.

Point 7) Ahhh; I see. I mistook what you were saying. I agree, its neat going back to places you've known from other games, and seeing how they changed in different times.

 

What I was is saying is add positive input to the topic without any connection to what I said. My last post being an example of that, it just seemed to me that you were not adding any thoughts of your own.

About being an Illithid...I meant how *could* you be one if it's a prelude. About the level I'm sure there could be a restriction. Anyway I thought it was the equivalent of a 12th level fighter.
Didn't understand what you meant by "meet this guy".

The alignment was a stupid idea after reflection.

I am looking for side quests. I'm looking for stuff you do because you want to not because there's no other way to reach the next chapter. Like all the areas in BG1 which make the game a a lot more replayable.

The bag size is quite a small issue though it's basically the amount of weapons you find..In IWD nearly everyone you kill has some enchanted weapon or armor and they loose their value...In BG1 for instance the amount of named items was so low you could get really connected to the item no matter when you found it in the game. For instance the Spiders Bane sword with the story behind it held throughout the entire game where as in IWD I was changing every item every second.

8) A small issue...It would be good if the game didn't end when the main character is Imprisoned as long as the other chars are alive...how do they know you haven't got a freedom spell on you? And I suppose the character will be one who doesn't loose his essence when he dies so the same goes for dying...It would be good if you could just revive the char with your other party members.

 

"Meet this guy" assumed the Illithid would be an NPC who you could add to your party... if he could only be added late in the game, it makes some sense. If he's available at 1st level, it doesn't.

I know what you mean about items, now; it was somewhat annoying in IWD to get a really cool item... only to realize that everything you have is statistically better.

And I like being able to revive your character so long as the party survives; it would enhance the "normal" aspect of your main character.

 

I liked many elements of both BG 1&2, but here are some suggestions.
-As many have said, bigger party, I don't know about 10, but 8 would be nice.
-Keep the map system from BG 1. There was just something about wandering in the wilderness and suddenly finding some glittering cave or the like that made everything worthwhile.
-NPCs should have interactive storylines that can play a major part in the main story.
-The evil path should be as developed as the good path and the opportunities to take it should be many and start early. I hate to see games where the only way to complete 90% of the quests is the good one.
-Improvable, customizable items and strongholds.
-Levels 1-20.
-NPCs should not improve before you get them, depending on your level, but when you get them they should have the experience to do so. This way you can customize them better without rushing to get them early or anything.
-Nothing should consume XP like ToEE did. I know its D&D rules, but the entire idea is stupid.
-Possibly turn-based combat like ToEE had, but I'm not sure.

 

I rather like having things cost XP... it makes a degree of sense that you have to put some of your personal power into a magic item. It's better, IMO, than 2e, where making magic items gave you XP, which meant you level up by making magic items.

 

That all depends on how you look at magical creation. Personally, I think if you have to give up a part of yourself to make it, that part should be in it, i.e. my longsword that took 1500 xp to make is now sentient and gains levels with me, only slower or something.
On a seperate note, I'd also like to see familiars and/or animal companions that are actually worth getting. In BG2, the familiars were just a CON boost and one less inventory slot. If you tried to actually use them, they always got themselves killed. In ToEE, familiars were a skill bonus and one less inventory slot, you couldn't do anything else with them, and animal companions were berserk suicidal weaklings only useful for clearing larger groups of weak enemies, and that's what I got fireball for. In folk lore and mythology, familiars were powerful spirits that aided the wizard in casting spells, boosted their powers, enhanced their health, and/or gathered resources and materials for them. In many the familiar was also immortal and you had to kill the wizard to banish it. That may be a little too powerful for this game, but I want my familiar to actually be good.

 

Really, just looking at some of the suggestions you guys are giving, you probably should wait until BG30 if you want them in a BG game. Seriously, I doubt some of the stuff you listed are ever going to happen in one game together, let alone something like BG3. What some of you are suggesting changes the very foundation of BG-ness.