Baldur's Gate Baldur's Gate III by Larian Studios - it's turn-based and isometric, folks

take me home
Baldurs gate
Through the mines
And berogost town

Oh cloakwood
Bite me spiders
I got antidote
And Jahera too

Take me home
Baldurs gate

 

They wanted to make Aragorn a class is basically the problem.

They tried giving it some defining features in various editions with mild success. Such as "Oh he's the archer guy". But what about any other character that's an archer and takes archery feats? And it's pretty limiting to tie a whole class to one weapon. "Oh he's the two-weapon fighting guy." Same issue, anyone can do it with feats. "Oh you can choose one or the other." Same. "Oh he's the animal companion dude now, not the wizard." "Let's give him favored enemies and terrain." But what if we don't fight them or go there? "Oh I know let's make him a nature caster."

Every edition the focus changes a bit. And then alternate versions always come out to "fix" it for those who like it another way. Problem is, the concept of a "ranger" hasn't had a clear definition from which class features would be derived. It's way too much a mix of Rogue, Fighter, and sometimes Druid to have something of its own. And then there's the whole tradition problem: if you were to invent a unifying feature that defined the class, people would balk at it as they have gotten used to conceiving rangers a certain way, even if it varies from person to person. So now Rangers are just an amalgam of class features that have no clear unifying concept.

Personally I liked the 3.5E Scout better. Focus on mobility. But it was very much tied to that iteration of rules.

 

The reason a "ranger" class exists is because imagination-impaired people wanted to "be Aragorn". In reality, this is a fighter-rogue who is good at tracking/working in the wilds. Done. You don't need a class for that at all.

 

Vincke:

 

This sums up my thoughts on the Ranger class. Every time I consider playing one I end up going Rogue because they're more interesting in pretty much every way. There's nothing that is unique or gets you excited about playing a Ranger. Their angles are covered by better classes.

 

Hyperlinks, take me home
To the place I belong
Rip new assholes, with king content
Take me home, hyperlinks

***

Gibberlings, type some code
Make a mod, for the world
Beamdog takes it, We all hate them
Type some code, Gibberlings

***

Candlekeep, chanters chant
Sanctum of, Gorion's Ward
Elven arses, Shank and Carbos
Chanters chant, Candlekeep

***

Candlekeep, chanters chant
Prophecy, of Alaundo
Lord of Murder, he shall perish
Chanters chant, Candlekeep

 

Generic-Giant-Spider

 

You haven't been paying attention: you'll need those baskets to set them on fire and throw them at the enemy.

 

1) What the fuck?!

2) It is all about the presentation:

To someone who isn't a mentally disabled and / or ignorant of RPG's (meaning the real PnP kind, and not what passes for it these days), it wouldn't be strange to understand the concept of ...playing a character other than yourself, with another skillset than yourself. Meaning that he may or may not be an accurate shooter, regardless of the skill of the player.

If the game is in first person and you miss despite having your target in the center of your sights... Yes, I can agree with what he said. Becuase it is a fucking stupid way to present it.
It would make sense if the view is isometric or similar, so that you, as the player, can "fill in the blanks" yourself.

3) But why am I even trying. We all know that in this day and age, people can not fill in the blanks or imagine something abstract, or understand basic probability or anything worthwhile what so ever. And they can and will self-publish their moronic views via the internet. It is an overwhelmning risk that these people are the target demographic, too, seeing as they are the vast majority.

 

Swen has gone completely bonkers

 

Basket weaver class confirmed

 

Table Thrower prestige class confirmed

 

How triggered will you fuckwads be if after your first miss on an attack roll and with each subsequent miss, the game slices 5% / 1 side of the d20 range in which you would miss? Do you really, genuinely think this is terrible design for a video game?

 

I like Minsc.

 

For the love of Allah please stop promoting your blog for just one second.

 

In defense of ze D&D artstyle (and this is coming from someone who venerates Frank Frazetta), I have to admit that I find the art direction in 5e D&D absolutley acceptable and sometimes even great. It looks nothing like the picture above, which seems like some 4e supplement depiction of hero characters. Current D&D artstyle is realistic, more mature, grounded, drawn in earthly and darker tones and emphasizing more on a slighlty fantasic but still medieval look. Like the BG III teaser. It's miles above D&D 4e and Pathfinder:

Show Spoiler Hide Spoiler

Show Spoiler Hide Spoiler

Show Spoiler Hide Spoiler

Show Spoiler Hide Spoiler

Show Spoiler Hide Spoiler

Show Spoiler Hide Spoiler

Show Spoiler Hide Spoiler

Show Spoiler Hide Spoiler

I mean, just look at that badass female paladin. That's how it's done. She looks like a fucking valkyrie.

Yes, there still is some Wayne Reynolds extravaganza sprinkled in here and there, but compare the overall approach with 4e D&D or what Pathfinder is doing with 2e:

Show Spoiler Hide Spoiler

You can spot ze huge difference in general aesthetics and tone. And this makes me feel very comfortable with the artistic style of BG III if this and the teaser are holding any truth.

 

Maybe. Jim Cummings is the voice of Minsc. And Jim Cummings got Me Too'd.

 

It's obvious that Swen Cucke is incredibly clumsy in handling intellectual property... expect them to over-expose icons such as Mind Flayers and Minsc in a desperate effort to divert attention from the popamolization of the game.

 

As made obvious by what exactly?

 

Everyone is whinging about the combat, but at least Larian has the quest reactivity covered on completely different level.

As an example, one simple fetch quest I did yesterday in DOS2:

They only need to attach passable fantasy writing to that and they've already beaten BG by a country mile.

 

By the shitload of money he will earn with BG III.

 

Larian have a hard time at "passable writing" so I'm not hopeful.

 

What would the reasoning be behind that rule? If the cause is sensible, such as say, a magic artifact that alters your "luck", or, in the case of science fiction, a targeting computer which continually adjusts your aim to increase hit probability, I wouldn't mind it.
If "it just works", it is bad, lazy design because it doesn't reflect reality. All the wargames /rpg rules of old are abstractions of reality - id est no wacky shit, beacuse players will deem it unfair if their tank platoon is annihilated by a man with a blackpowder pistol. Not to mention defeating the purpose of said rules; simulating something.

 

No crushmaster - no preorder.

 

They should hire James Jacobs for wirting the plot.